Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Rail Services (Report)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain a copy of the National Economic Research Association's report on the quality of rail services for his departmental library.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): It already has one.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that the Secretary of State has a copy of the report sitting on a shelf at home and that he has had an opportunity to read it. If he has, he will be aware that it highlights fewer seats on trains, despite more traffic on the railways and the sort of overcrowding that I experienced travelling from Cornwall to London last night. Many people had to stand from well before Plymouth until they reached London. I experienced, together with many other people, the difficulties of travelling on British Rail at a time when it is underfunded. The report highlights all those problems and calls on the Government to invest in rail, get traffic off the roads, reduce lorry traffic through towns and villages and do something about congestion. Will the Minister act on the report and proceed quickly to ensure safe public transport in this country?

Mr. Channon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had a difficult journey, and I understand the problems that he raised. Not only do I have a copy of the report at home but I have read it with care and have had a meeting with the trade unions about it. It contains much good stuff; I do not agree with all of it, but I agree with much of it. We are acting on many of the report's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned overcrowding, which I accept sometimes is a problem on some InterCity lines. He will be pleased to learn that I have today approved investment by InterCity in 31 extra mark IV coaches, at a cost of £8·5 million, which will allow electrified trains to run on the east coast main line with more coaches, which will relieve congestion and cascade on to other lines.

Mr. Adley: As the report to which the question refers relates investment to service, and as we have just finished praying, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the following matters? The statement that he made a few days ago in the House has given road builders a bonanza, with the minimum of research, while British Rail must climb a high hurdle every time it wants to present proposals to my

right hon. Friend. Will he consider the fact that France builds railways in the prospect of doing business, whereas British Rail must prove in advance—sometimes against all the odds—that it can do the business before it is given investment approval?

Mr. Channon: Although I have had many talks with my hon. Friend, I have yet to convince him that, whatever the height of the hurdle, British Rail always manages to climb it. [Interruption.] I am looking forward to debating the amount of investment made in British Rail, which we shall deal with in a later question, when I shall show that in real terms investment is considerably larger than at any time under a Labour Government.

Mr. Anderson: If progress is to be made, is it not important that those who take the key decisions have personal experience of the quality of British Rail? It is said that over the past decade the Prime Minister has travelled on it only once—and only for a short distance. Will the Secretary of State therefore try to persuade her to use British Rail from time to time?

Mr. Channon: That is all very well. The Prime Minister is keen to support British Rail and has supported its investment programmes, as have the Government collectively. In contrast to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I had an excellent journey on British Rail this morning.

London Transport

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Transport; and what was discussed.

Mr. Channon: On Thursday 8 June, at a meeting of my London passenger transport group, which discussed the central and east London rail studies.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-suffering commuters of London will have no sympathy for a strike over the retention of a promotion system based on Buggins' turn rather than ability? Does he agree that a wage claim of £3,000 a year is quite extraordinary and unjustified? Does he agree that common sense rather than greed and avarice should be the guiding light of London Transport?

Mr. Channon: I agree that prolonged industrial troubles on the London Underground are extremely damaging to travellers. They will not help to resolve the problems, and the House should urge that there should not be such industrial action.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that a sad lack of common sense is being displayed by the management of London Underground, who seem to believe that the way to improve the service is to price as many passengers off it as possible? Is that sensible or far-seeing management? What plans does the Secretary of State have to encourage management to improve the service?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Lady knows that a question on the central London rail study has been tabled, and we shall deal with it soon.

Mr. Prescott: That is nothing to do with it.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman says that it has nothing to do with it. I am about to answer the hon. Lady's question.

Mr. Snape: Get on with it, then.

Mr. Channon: It is not easy with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) sitting there. I have received no proposals on fares from LRT. I understand that it is concerned, rightly, about safety and congestion. I have already approved more than £200 million investment in safety measures and £700 million investment to improve the Central and Northern lines. I would have to hear convincing arguments from LUL before I agreed to pricing people off the Underground.

Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport about the way in which traffic cones seem to be breeding in central London as well as on motorways? Yesterday, they were fouling up the approaches to the A40. Will my right hon. Friend open a hotline so that members of the public can point out where traffic cones have been left in places unnecessarily, simply because someone has been too lazy to move them out of the way?

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider my right hon. Friend's comment. I am not sure that it is a matter for the chairman of London Regional Transport, but I shall certainly get in touch with my right hon. Friend about those cones.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept, as no doubt the chief secretary will do in the future, that the fare increases on the Underground system, which, since 1980, have been three times higher than inflation, result directly from his policy that all costs should be covered by fares? That is the opposite of the position in Europe which, with a public subsidy system, has produced the better quality service and cheaper fares that are so different from the London system, which is a shame to us.

Mr. Channon: I do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said. Investment in London Underground is increasing continually and is running at historically high levels—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]. I am entitled to answer in the way that I want. I do not agree that the fares are higher in real terms than they were some years ago. The hon. Gentleman's question is based upon a misapprehension.

Mr. Hanley: The majority of people in London believe that the answer to London's traffic problems lies mainly in improved services, and the Underground plays a large part in that. In his discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, because of the great demand on services, London Underground will provide more and longer trains as soon as possible?

Mr. Channon: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. He will be extremely pleased to know of the enormous increase in investment in London Underground, which is running, in 1988–89 prices, at £284 million a year. When the Labour party and the GLC had control of it, investment was less than half that level.

London Underground (Automatic Barriers)

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement about ticket barriers on the London Underground system.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I understand that a report from the independent consultants on the working of the Underground ticketing system is expected shortly.

Mr. Banks: Will the young and up-and-coming Minister please explain to me how London Underground Limited can carry on installing ticket gates when virtually no one in London approves of them? Has the hon. Gentleman seen the chaos at, for example, Westminster Underground station, where the authorities have to lock the gates open because of the pressure of people? Will he please call in London Underground to tell it to stop this ridiculous scheme which, I remind him, would never have been allowed under the good old GLC?

Mr. Portillo: I have considered the problems of congestion in a number of our stations. I do not think that the ticketing system is the main contributor. There are other reasons for the congestion. The railway inspectorate and the fire brigade have looked at the gates. We have asked consultants to look at them, and their report will be available shortly. The hon. Gentleman often urges us to adopt the systems that operate abroad. I point out that gates at exits are to be found in Hong Kong, Singapore, Washington, San Francisco, Seoul, Philadelphia, Illinois, Tokyo, Osaka and on the Paris RER.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend undertake not to return to the old days of the GLC, which doubled the fares and doubled the rates in 1981? Will he give Londoners an assurance on the effect of these gates in a fire?

Mr. Portillo: That has been the subject of the study by the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade. Emergency buttons are positioned in various places where the staff can operate them, so that all the gates fly open. Recently, the Underground has checked that in the event of a power failure—even a single-phase power failure—the gates would open automatically. That is the basis on which the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade have felt confident in approving those systems.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister look a the chaos that all too frequently occurs at Gatwick airport, where passengers from airlines find it almost impossible to purchase a ticket? Is the Minister aware that late at night, only one window out of eight—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady mean Gatwick underground?

Mrs. Clwyd: I am talking about passengers attempting to get on to the Underground from the airlines.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very wide of the question.

Central London Rail Study

Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made a decision about the options contained in the central London rail study; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: Not yet, but I hope to do so later in the year.

Mr. Livingstone: The Secretary of State expressed regret that the rail study did not make reference to the north London line, a vital part of the London transport network. Will he exert whatever pressure he can on British Rail to prevent the closure of Primrose Hill station, which will throw further pressure on to London Transport because it is British Rail's clear intention now to reduce the number of trains running on the Watford line to Liverpool Street, from live an hour to one an hour? How can the Secretary of State justify that, given the present congestion on the Tube?

Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we are considering carefully all the options contained in the central London rail study, which presents some imaginative and important proposals for improving London's transport in the future. The question of the north London line is being considered carefully, as it relates also to the east London rail study. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's later points. In general, we are now engaged in some of the most important and radical suggestions to try to solve London's traffic and Underground problems over the next couple of decades.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these massive plans will be vulnerable to excessive delays because of their complexity? Will he reassure the House that we shall proceed rapidly with the proposals, because we could have endless arguments about all the different options? Can we get digging as soon as possible?

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's support for the proposals. My aim is to come to conclusions in the very near future—or nearish future—and to come to the House, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), with definite proposals later this year.

Ms. Ruddock: May we assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, therefore, that he is denying the reports which have already appeared in the press that he has made decisions? Will he tell the House about the shape and finance of London's new rail links? Will he tell us whether he has authorised British Rail and LRT to prepare a private Bill? Most important of all, will he give us some idea of the cost of the Paddington to Liverpool Street line and the level of fares increases that will be necessary if he continues to insist that the passengers must pay?

Mr. Channon: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, no decisions have been taken. It will be very nice if it is possible—and I hope that it will be—to have a Bill in November dealing with one of the solutions to the problem, although it is impossible to be certain at this stage. No decisions have been taken, so I cannot instruct people on these matters. The hon. Lady mentioned fares. The question of financing whatever proposals come forward has to be studied. Fares will have to play their part. There is also the option of Government grants and of contributions from developers.

Drink-Driving

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for tackling the problem of drinking and driving.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We have today launched a new campaign, with the help and co-operation of the medical services, the police, the insurance industry and the brewers and retailers. Two new television commercials will be shown. New posters and publicity material are available for use by road safety officers throughout the country. The basic message continues to be that drinking and driving wrecks lives and that it is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my hon. Friend confirm that if other insurance companies follow the line recently taken by Pearl Assurance, motorists who insist on continuing to drink before they drive will find that they are likely to face a nasty financial shock, even if they do not kill or disable somebody?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has a good point. At the moment an insurance company does not need to pay out for those who drive unroadworthy vehicles. Pearl Assurance has simply applied the same principle to those who are not roadworthy drivers. The company will not necessarily pay out to mend such a driver's car and may claim back any third party payments that it has to make. I do not see any reason why the 19 out of 20 of us who do not drink and drive should have to continue to subsidise those who do. We are sufficiently at risk of our lives as innocent victims and I do not see why we should pay out money as well.

Sir Dudley Smith: While every sensible person must he against drinking and driving, is it not correct that we have a good record compared with other European countries, thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Bottomley: It is certainly true that the campaigns initiated over the years by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have paid off tremendously in saving lives. The death trend in Britain is very much better than, for example, in Finland or even New South Wales, which go in for other strategies.
We must change people's understanding and their behaviour, using allies in the drinks trade, so that wherever people go to drink, they can have alcohol-free drinks if they are driving. That is the host's responsibility. It is the passenger's responsibility to pick an alcohol-free driver and it is primarily the driver's responsibility to decide between the throttle and the bottle. The trouble is that even at the present reduced levels, the killing season is now with us.

Public Inquiries

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to improve the system of transport public inquiries.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The public inquiry system is kept under review. All suggestions for change are given careful consideration. We are satisfied that for the great majority of road proposals the present inquiry system works well. We need to safeguard the rights of those affected by our proposals.

Mr. Baldry: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am somewhat disappointed by that reply because, as my hon. Friend must be aware, it took some 30 years from Ernest


Marples promising that the Banbury bypass would be built as a matter of priority for substantial construction on the M40 to begin? Will my hon. Friend take a Genghis Khan approach to the public inquiry system to simplify it substantially, to shorten it and to shut up those professional objectors who are in the vanguard in calling for infrastructure investment in general but who seem to oppose every infrastructure investment in particular?

Mr. Bottomley: The answer is that I am not sure. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we need to save time before we get to the inquiry stage. Three quarters of inquiries take two weeks or less and consider people's legitimate interests. However, time is wasted by the Department in trying to find an acceptable route. Where there is controversy—with the exception of Worthing—perhaps one way would be for people to decide whether they want the bypass—if there is to be one—to run east, west, north or south before the Department commits too much time to fighting fruitless battles. We need to fight for people's interests in a safer environment, with safer roads, and better industrial access. Perhaps then, as my hon. Friend wants, we could save a great deal of time.

Mr. Allen: What is the Minister's view on the circumventing of public inquiries into major transport matters by the use of the private Bill procedure in this House? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friends to ensure that in future all major transport issues are examined publicly so that all witnesses can give the evidence that they feel is appropriate?

Mr. Bottomley: It is odd that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that having a matter considered by the House of Commons is in some way to get away from a public inquiry. That is the way in which most of the railways have been built in this country and it is the way in which most people would like them to continue to be built.

Mr. Madel: Does the White Paper on roads take account of the expenditure implications of any delays in the construction of bypasses caused by lengthy controversial public inquiries, because every month of delay has an inflationary effect on the final bill?

Mr. Bottomley: It should not, as inflation comes down again. The important point is that we do not want to lose any time unnecessarily. Each pound spent on the roads brings a £2 return and we are getting a return of about £160 million per year from the present road programme in road casualty reductions alone. Therefore, as my hon. Friend has said, it is important that we get on with the programme.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister confirm that the Government are seriously considering replacing roads public inquiries by the private Bill procedure of this House to avoid giving people the opportunity of having their views heard? As the Minister is concerned about delays, will he confirm that the Birmingham northern relief road has now been delayed directly because of the Green Paper on private financing and that, instead of getting their road, the people of that area now face the possibility of a toll road?

Mr. Bottomley: The answers to the two specific questions on the inquiry are no, and not necessarily. The only person who has suggested the use of Bills for a large number of road schemes is the director of Friends of the

Earth. I was not persuaded by him and I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

Mr. Charles Wardle: My hon. Friend's announcement later this week of alternative proposals for the Hastings, western and Bexhill bypass will be a welcome sign of further progress on the Dover to Honiton trunk road link. However, if a public inquiry follows the eventual publication of draft orders, when does my hon. Friend imagine the road will be complete?

Mr. Bottomley: The answer to that is NIMTOO—not in my term of office—although we want to make as much progress as we can.

Manchester Airport (Rail Link)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of a rail link to Manchester airport.

Mr. Portillo: We expect to receive a formal investment proposal from British Rail shortly.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that there appears to have been a last-minute financial hiccup in the negotiations between the Department and the Greater Manchester transport authority in the past couple of weeks? Can he confirm that the problems have now been smoothed out and that there is nothing to stop the construction of the rail link going ahead later this year?

Mr. Portillo: I must wait and see what British Rail's investment case is. The hon. Gentleman may have been referring to the question of resource allocation for the PTA share of the cost in the next financial year. I am happy to agree in principle that the allocation should be covered. The hon. Gentleman asked about timing. I am well aware that if the rail link is to be built, it should be phased in carefully with the new terminal, which is due to open in April 1993.

Mr. Eastham: May I impress on the Minister the fact that Manchester airport has been applying for the rail link for the past 10 years? I hope that the Minister will make it clear to British Rail that we want no more unnecessary delays. Given the money that has been spent on Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow, is it not about time that the north-west had its share of expenditure?

Mr. Portillo: I do not think that the time spent in establishing the case has been wasted in any way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take comfort from what I have said—that it is well understood that the important factor in the timing of the rail link is that it should fit in with the new terminal planned for April 1993. If Ministers receive the investment proposal shortly, we shall be in good time to phase the link in with that.

Mr. Favell: Is the Minister aware that the car park at Manchester airport is now immensely expensive, especially for the holiday traveller? Does he agree that a rail link would be a great boon to those who save up to go on holiday once a year?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an interesting additional point. I think that the investment case made to


me by British Rail will be made in the light of all the circumstances, and of all the extra traffic that can be attracted. I look forward to seeing that proposal shortly.

Midland Rail Electrification

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss an investment plan for the electrification of the midland main line.

Mr. Portillo: It is for British Rail to propose those electrification schemes which it believes to be worth while.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that people who travel on the line through the east midlands to Nottingham are heartily cheesed off at the Government's attitude to the electrification of the east midlands line? It is a scandal that the Government are prepared to find perhaps£1/2 billion for environmental improvements where they see electoral advantage and yet cannot allow or encourage British Rail to spend a mere £100 million to electrify the line through the east midlands. Will the Minister look again at the rate of return that he has demanded that British Rail should make on its capital and make it more feasible for British Rail to electrify the line? The east midlands needs the line. It needs electrification. Without that, we shall become an economic backwater. It is not good enough for the Government to keep washing their hands of the issue.

Mr. Portillo: I take it that what the hon. Gentleman really wants is an improved service to Nottingham and Sheffield. We have just had announced an improvement of 10 minutes in the journey time to Nottingham and an increased frequency of service. There is a new 7·30 am train which will doubtless be useful to the hon. Gentleman personally. Following the announcement by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the east coast main line, it may now be possible to transfer trains from that line to the east midlands line to give Nottingham and Sheffield an hourly service.
Electrification is a separate matter, and it is not likely to bring much of an improvement in journey time. I believe that the question of electrification will arise at a later date, when the line is due for reinvestment. The rolling stock on the present line is well within its working life at the moment.

Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend will recall that a long debate on this matter was initiated last year by my hon. Friends the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and myself and that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was notably absent from it. We spoke then of the need for electrification in view of the great changes that had taken place, particularly the Toyota plant. Will my hon. Friend undertake to ask the chairman of British Rail to look again at this matter, in the light of the facts that more investment is being made in the east midlands and there is a crying need for investment to provide a direct link via the Channel to France to bring prosperity to the midlands?

Mr. Portillo: The chairman of British Rail is well aware of my hon. Friend's opinion and those of many of my hon. Friends who have spoken so strongly in favour of electrification. The quality of service is important, not electrification per se. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased

both with the current improvements and with those that I announced today, which are the result of my right hon. Friend's statement about additional rolling stock.

British Rail (Privatisation)

Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about privatisation proposals for British Rail.

Mr. Channon: Privatisation is one of the topics that I discuss from time to time with Sir Robert Reid.

Mr. Snape: That was a terrific answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after years of running the railways on a Government-sponsored shoestring, to tell British Rail management that privatisation is the only answer to its problems is creating massive uncertainty within the industry? Is not talk of a return to the large regional railway companies simply nostalgic nonsense? Does not the United Kingdom, like other advanced industrialised nations, need a publicly owned, properly funded national railway system?

Mr. Channon: As I have told the House on many occasions, we have not decided about privatisation. I welcome British Rail's recent impressive performance, as do many hon. Members, and privatisation could reinforce that. However, I shall pursue that only if I am convinced that it will lead to an improved service to the customer. That is why I have given the hon. Gentleman this answer, I note his views about large regional companies.

Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a pent-up feeling that British Rail should be privatised for the benefit of both rail users and British Rail employees? Would not the employees welcome the opportunity of a share option scheme, something that has been consistently denied to them by the Opposition, and especially those working on the east coast main line? They will be delighted with today's announcement of 31 new coaches, which will mean even greater improvements. The sooner they have them, the better.
Should not the chairman of British Rail urgently consider the privatisation of certain sectors, including catering and the property board, both of which have been lacklustre?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a great deal of interest in and support for privatisation. There is no evidence from British Rail's performance to support the view that any uncertainty over that issue is causing any damage—

Mr. Snape: That is why I asked the question.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman did make that point.
We must decide on the long-term future of the railways without unnecessary delay. I note the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and will bear them in mind.

Mr. Dalyell: What does Sir Robert Reid say from time to time about the technical feasibility of privatisation?

Mr. Channon: Sir Robert Reid, not I, should speak for himself on these matters. British Rail is co-operating fully with the work in hand and the board has taken no formal position on privatisation.

Mr. Redwood: When considering privatisation, will my right hon. Friend take into account the need to make the railways more enterprising and more responsive to growth opportunities? I am thinking especially of the Earley power station site development in my constituency, where a nationalised industry appears to be reluctant to install a station that is much needed. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the ability to go for growth and for new passengers is written into the privatisation proposals?

Mr. Channon: I shall study what my hon. Friend has said. Most hon. Members, certainly Conservative Members, know that privatisation in a large number of areas has released the initiative and enterprise of many state industries, has provided growth opportunities and is heartily to be desired.

Road Casualties

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the general trend in road casualty figures.

Mr. Channon: Casualties in road accidents reached a post-war peak of over 397,000 in 1965. Since then, the trend has generally been downwards. In 1987, the latest year for which full details are available, there were 311,500 casualties. During the same period, the trend for deaths in road accidents has also been downwards, falling from 7,950 in 1965 to 5,125 in 1987.
Provisional figures for 1988 show a slight upturn in total casualties to 321,700, but road deaths show a continued fall, to an estimated 5,041 in 1988.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many families will be eternally grateful to him for his success in bringing down the number of road deaths, although, naturally, there is still some concern about road casualties? What action is my right hon. Friend taking in respect of the various organisations that have an interest in making representations on his response to the North report?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. My predecessors, my colleagues in the Department and the Department itself have done an immense amount of work on this important topic. In July 1987, I set the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000. Traffic is increasing considerably. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the North report. Naturally, we shall carefully consider any representation that has been made to us. We have already received a large number, and we are considering them carefully. We have already been able to take some action about high risk offenders.

Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one way of combating the road casualty figures is to make sure that motor vehicles are roadworthy. Would he care to comment on the European meeting of Ministers, at which a new tyre directive was devised, and tell us when it is proposed to be introduced?

Mr. Channon: I thought that my hon. Friend would be pleased about the new tyre directive. I read his powerful

speech a few days before the European Council meeting. I am not sure whether I am in total agreement with him about the matter, but I think that he will be pleased about the new 1·6 mm tyre tread directive which will come into force in the middle of 1990. If I have that detail wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from British Rail about the need for a second Channel tunnel rail terminal at Waterloo in addition to that at King's Cross; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Portillo: British Rail has been planning for some years to locate its London terminal for Channel tunnel passenger trains at Waterloo and for it to be in operation by 1993. Powers for that were granted in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. It is now proposing to locate a second London international passenger station at King's Cross.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only reason for such a grandiose arrangement at Waterloo is to accommodate the passport and immigration controls and for the convenience of Customs clearance? Is it not time that the authorities brought their procedures into line with those on the continent, where Customs, passport and immigration controls are done on the train? There would then be no need to have such a grand, expensive development at Waterloo.

Mr. Portillo: I do not think that my hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that that is the only reason. A large numberof passengers will use the services, and that is why British Rail is having to think about two termini to cope with more than 15 million passengers a year. The Customs clearance matters are not settled. They are still being discussed within the Government. I recognise the force of the argument that, for the convenience of customers, it is much the easiest thing to have the same sort of arrangement as we have at airports, whereby people would carry their suitcases through Customs and clear quickly after they have left their trains.

Mr. Spearing: Have the Government not made a complete mess of the matter? Is it a fact that British Rail representatives told the Select Commitee that they did not need another terminal other than at Waterloo? We now need one at King's Cross and, apparently, a third one at Waterloo. Is it not time that the Government had a complete strategic survey of the matter to include other sites such as Stratford and show the country that they mean what they say about the planning and transport inquiries on which a question was answered earlier this afternoon?

Mr. Portillo: I am rather confused by the hon. Gentleman's reference to a third terminal at Waterloo. My understanding is that there is to be a terminal at Waterloo. That is covered in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. The proposal is now for a second terminal at King's Cross. There is no proposal for a third terminal. It is for British Rail to demonstrate whether it should be at King's Cross or at Stratford. During the debates on the King's Cross Bill there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and others to consider the important arguments that have been made in favour of King's Cross as against Stratford.

Drink-Driving

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is spending on drink-drive advertising in the current year.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: About £2 million is being spent on new television commercials, air time, new publicity materials, and support for local road safety officer campaigns. That relatively small sum is multiplied many times by the coverage of the subject in the media, including thoughful television coverage, such as the recent BBC "Horizon" programme, and by reporting of drink-drive cases. The campaign is being heavily supported by material produced by the Brewers Society, by individual brewers and by the club movement.

Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a vast amount of public money? While I am sure that we would all agree that that is absolutely necessary, does he agree that it is hardly logical? Surely the media in their news bulletins should give as much attention to lives lost through drink-driving as they do to any rail or aeroplane disaster.

Mr. Bottomley: It is true that, if between 800 and 900 people lost their lives in the air, at sea or on the railways, the media would be concentrating all the time on why and how that happened. If I had had the courage I would have announced this morning that no public money was to be spent on advertising, because then every television programme and newspaper would have to be explaining why drink-driving is so dangerous. I have not such courage.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Advice to Ministers

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North on 8 May, Official Report, column 553, what assessment he had made of the implications for the treatment of documents containing his advice to Ministers and others of the recently revised Cabinet Office guidance on Government information.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): None.

Mr. Dalyell: As one who sat on this Bench and heard Jack Profumo make statements to the House, does the Attorney agree with Harold Macmillan that it is rather important to our system of government that Ministers do not tell lies to the House? In those circumstances, as a major Law Officer of the Crown, what did he think when he heard that Sir Leon Brittan had said that the most intimate advisers to the Prime Minister, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham, had absolutely abused his letter raising question on the Prime Minister's behaviour? Is the senior Law Officer entirely happy in that rather bad company?

The Attorney-General: As the question began with a premise that I most certainly do not accept, I have nothing that I can usefully add in response to it.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): On 7 June. We discussed a variety of matters of Departmental interest.

Mr. Janner: Did the Minister discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the inability of the law to deal with cases of incitement to racial violence and the likelihood of greater danger as a result of the Rushdie affair? Does he agree that the law is not capable of dealing adequately with such public order offences and that it should be strengthened? Are the Government considering such strengthening?

The Solicitor-General: Policy is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but basically, no, I do not agree with the premise of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I do not believe that anything that he has put in his question has made it out.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my hon. and learned Friend please discuss with the DPP the implications of the case of Gooch, who was convicted at the Old Bailey of the manslaughter of his wife, my constituent, where the judge said that there was no justification for accepting the plea to manslaughter rather than the charge for which he was brought before the court, namely murder? In cases of that kind, would it not be better for the CPS to clear a reduction from the charge of murder with the trial judge privately beforehand and thus avoid giving the impression in court that the reduction in the charge had been done at the convenience of the CPS?

The Solicitor-General: I shall certainly look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend. It may be useful to say that, against an open question, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could either write a letter or put down a specific question.

Mr. Fraser: Can the Solicitor-General help us on the question of prior publicity and prosecutions? Does he recall that in December the Attorney-General told the House, in the Father Ryan case, that juries have a "scrupulous disregard" of what they see and hear elsewhere and that the risk of publicity affecting their ability to try a case fairly does not exist? Can he say, first, whether those remarks and those of the Prime Minister applied only to the Ryan case or are they general? Secondly, can he say that there is no doctrine applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the effect that the prior publication of reports, such as the King's Cross report or a Department of Trade and Industry inspector's report, acts as a debarment to a subsequent prosecution? Thirdly, can he tell us why the consideration by the Director of DTI reports is taking so long?

The Solicitor-General: It would be in rare cases that prior publication became a debarment to prosecution but one must look at each case on its merits. The House will have in mind particular cases in recent weeks, which would obviously have a very different effect from other cases that we have discussed.

City Fraud

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions for discussions frequently, and plan to continue to do so. Subjects include the handling of fraud cases, whether arising in the City or elewhere. Some cases of serious and complex fraud, however, are now handled by the serious fraud office.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether the Attorney-General or the DPP have a quiet little chuckle to themselves when they meet and discuss things such as City fraud as opposed to laws affecting trade unions? Is it not rather odd that in our society people such as Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon—city fraudsters who got away with £40 million—are not extradited now that five years has elapsed and yet when workers go before the courts, the judges find the appropriate sentences in some old or new law book in order to hammer the railwaymen, the miners, the seafarers and now the dockers? Surely the truth of the matter is that in our society, run by the Tory Government, there is one law for the bosses and City crooks and one for the workers.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that, yet again, the wish has been the father to the thought. The confusion in the question lies between the ability to extradite from the United States in which we are bound by⁁

Mr. Skinner: You let them go.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asked a question as well as making a long speech and I am giving him the credit of expecting an answer to it, which I am trying to give.
In the case of extradition from the United States, we are bound by the provision of the United States extradition law. In the case of prosecution for fraudulent and criminal conduct we are bound by our own provisions. The hon. Gentleman refers to the Lloyd's scandals. He may know, but he did not mention it because it did not suit him, that there is a prosecution now in train against a number of those who have been charged with offences in the course of the Lloyd's scandals. Under the administration of the serious fraud office and the Office of the DPP I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the criminal law is administered without fear or favour, affection of ill will.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he and his fellow Law Officers take such offences extremely seriously? Will he also confirm that they are being dealt with as quickly as they can by the police, because that does not always appear to be the case?

The Attorney-General: I confirm each of those questions, but the police, of course, are outside my ministerial responsibility. I suggest that the attitude of this Government to serious fraud may be judged by the fact that we have invited Parliament to legislate to introduce the serious fraud office, with unique powers, which have led to cases bring brought to court months and sometimes years earlier than would otherwise have been possible. The House need not accept my word on that, but take the word of the Commissioner of Police for the City of London in

his most recently published report, in which he paid great tribute to the serious fraud office at the end of its first year of operations.

Diplomats

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy in respect of the prosecution of diplomats.

The Attorney-General: Individuals enjoying diplomatic immunity may not by law be prosecuted unless there is a waiver of that immunity on behalf of the diplomat's own state. Whether it is appropriate to seek such a waiver is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The question whether a diplomat should be prosecuted will, subject to waiver, be determined by reference to the code for Crown prosecutors.

Mr. Banks: Is the Attorney-General aware of the scandal of unpaid parking fines that a number of embassies have been running up? Is it not about time that he asked his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to go for a waiver of diplomatic immunity against those individuals who are persistent offenders? If he cannot obtain a waiver, he should declare them persona non grata, because it is about time that some stern action was taken against those people.

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is great public resentment about those who abuse diplomatic status in the way that he has described. Whether a waiver should be applied for has to be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, will be made aware of the hon. Gentleman's feelings.

EC (Fines)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a paper outlining the rights of access to United Kingdom courts for individuals and companies which have fines imposed on them by the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General: No, Sir. National courts have no power to review the legality of fines imposed by the European Commission. Individuals and companies who wish to test the legality of such fines, may institute proceedings against the Commission in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Mr. Taylor: Could my hon. and learned Friend say whether, as one who believes in justice, he is worried that, under the mergers directive, the European Community can appoint inspectors who can walk into any British company that they think might be affected, obtain access to its premises, demand to see its papers, ask for information on the spot, and if they are not satisfied with the information, impose immediate fines of many tens of thousands of pounds, even per day? Is it not an outrage that, in a country which elieves in democracy and the rule of law, individuals can be fined massive sums, and their only recourse is to go to the European Court, which might actually increase the fines? Are not the Government willing to take seriously the fact that the basis of British law, that


one should have access to the courts before fines are imposed, is totally undermined both by this directive and one other that preceded it?

The Solicitor-General: I read my hon. Friend's speech in the recent debate and the answer given on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. From a legal aspect, any such company has a right of recourse to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg.—

Mr. Taylor: Three years later.

The Solicitor-General: Whether or not the fine is valid must be decided by the European Court of Justice, to which companies have access. However, the policy matters, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, were those raised in the debate and answered on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Nigeria

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Nigeria.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to visit Nigeria for the next round of United Kingdom-Nigeria bilateral talks. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs my right hon. Friend for Wallasey (Mr. Chalker) will be visiting Nigeria from 25 to 27 June to open an oil and gas seminar.
I visited Nigeria from 25 to 31 May, to attend the 25th anniversary meetings of the African development bank and fund, to discuss our biliateral aid programme with Nigerian Ministers and to visit technical co-operation projects.

Mr. Watts: In considering further our bilateral aid programme will my right hon. Friend consider giving priority to increasing the number of training places for Nigerians at United Kingdom educational institutions, including the Thames Valley college in my constituency, which has longstanding connections with Nigeria?

Mr. Patten: I know how distinguished a record the institution has in providing training for people from other countries. This year, in the United Kingdom, we shall be training about 480 students from Nigeria in one discipline or another, with the help of taxpayers' funds. We hope to increase that figure to 600, or more.

Mr. Winnick: When the visit to Nigeria takes place, will the British position on current events in China be explained? Will the Minister explain to the Nigerian Government our deep concern over the way in which British citizens involved in the media are being roughed up and subjected to brutal treatment by security thugs in China?

Mr. Patten: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he introduced that extremely important question on to the Floor of the House. Of course, we make clear our concern about those issues to everyone, and I am sure that the Nigerians are as concerned about them as others. Since I was in China last month, in Tiananmen

square at the beginning of the demonstrations and hoped, like the rest of the House, for a different outcome, I very much share the concern of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no elephants in Nigeria but that, if there were, he should tell the Nigerian Government that although this Government have taken dramatic and important steps to ban the import of ivory, they have left out one important thing: ivory can be stained by smoking, so the clause that forbids the import of all new ivory should be extended to cover the import of all ivory.

Mr. Patten: There are many places in which one would not find the elephant, including my hon. Friend's constituency. However, he raises a point of considerable importance. He was right to draw attention to the intitiative taken by my noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my noble Friend.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that we are doing a good deal in Zimbabwe, Kenya and elsewhere to support the strengthening of the institutions in those countries which help to conserve wildlife.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will agree that we should not go wide of the question. To do so is to the detriment of those who have questions lower down the Order Paper.

African Development Bank

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the annual meeting of the African development bank in Abuja.

Mr. Chris Patten: I attended, as governor for the United Kingdom, the recent annual meetings of the African development bank and fund in Abuja, Nigeria. The meeting also marked the 25th anniversary of the bank's establishment. We reviewed the bank's policies and programmes and we affirmed the importance of using its resources effectively particularly in view of the difficult challenges facing many African countries. I was asked to give a keynote speech on behalf of the non-regional member countries.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that, in addition to helping the bank to support structural development, he will try to persuade it to do more to protect the African environment?

Mr. Patten: I very much share my hon. Friend's point of view. In one of the two speeches I made at the bank's meeting I set out our concern about environmental issues. The threat posed to marginal land by population pressure and by environmental degradation is well understood. We know the impact of tropical deforestation. We have therefore launched a significant forestry initiative under the aegis of the tropical forestry action plan, and eight countries in Africa are participating in it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Since there are some elephants left in east and central Africa, will the Minister, when he goes to the meeting, encourage the making of loans to the African countries which are doing their best to try to protect their remaining herds of elephants? What can the hon.


Gentleman's Department do to support African countries which are taking a highly responsible attitude to the conservation of elephants?

Mr. Patten: As I said in reply to an earlier question on this subject, we are already providing funds in grant form to help other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, to strengthen their conservation departments, so that not only elephant but other wildlife can be preserved. In Kenya, we have a large programme which we are considering increasing, not least by the provision of capital equipment such as radios and trucks.

Aid

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in overseas aid in 1979 and in 1988 or the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in overseas aid in 1979 and in 1988 or the latest available year.

Mr. Chris Patten: The proportion of GNP given in net official development assistance in 1979 was 0·51 per cent. In 1988 it is provisionally estimated at 0·32 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: Those are abysmal figures. At a time when the Government have been able to pay back more than £14 billion of Britain's national debt in the past financial year it would have made much more sense if the figures the Minister gave had been at last comparable to the United Nations 0·7 per cent of GNP. That, on top of giving aid to some of these countries to pay off their debts, would have been a much more worthwhile gesture from one of the most developed countries—ours—even though it is run by a Tory Government. Why does not the Minister make amends this time? The Chancellor will tell him that there will be another massive pay-off of the national debt this year. Why does not the Minister ask him for a large proportion of that—say £1 billion—to help Third world countries?

Mr. Patten: Last year the hon. Gentleman and others criticised me when I announced that our aid/GNP figure had fallen. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so

reticent with his congratulations now that I have announced that it increased by 14 per cent. in 1988 over 1987. The House will know that, for me, the vital figure is the one for the total volume of our aid programme. I am pleased to say that that is increasing this year over the planned figure for last year by 12 per cent. in cash terms or 7 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal problems for the ratio is the rapid growth in our GNP, and that the figure that developing countries are looking for is the absolute amount that has been put into their countries and on what it is being spent?

Mr. Patten: Of course my hon. Friend is right. This year we shall spend about £165 million more on our aid programme than was planned to be spent last year. If there were to be a Labour Government—perish the thought—I am sure that they would be able rapidly to increase the aid/GNP proportion because the growth rate would fall like a stone.

Miss Lestor: If the Minister is looking for some sort of praise, I shall say to him that I am glad that pressure from the Opposition and from the aid lobby in particular has enabled him to make the announcement of the small increase in the amount of GNP devoted to aid. However, it is extremely small and he is well aware that the figure is well below the average for members of the European Community, for which the last figure given was .50 per cent. of GNP. Does he not agree that it is deplorable that not only are we well below standards in the EEC on the provision of clean water, and on consumer protection and employment protection rights, but we are below standard on the provision of aid to the Third world? When will he come to the House and announce a timetable for reaching the UN target of 0·7 per cent.?

Mr. Patten: I thank the hon. Lady for what I take to have been a bouquet in the earlier part of the question. I am not sure whether the latter part of her question will have ignited the European election campaign to the fever pitch that we all expect by Thursday. Once again I say to the hon. Lady that the figure that I announced for our aid/GNP proportion represents a 14 per cent. increase in 1988 over 1987. It is not without significance that our aid programme this year is 7 per cent. higher in real terms and 12 per cent. higher in cash terms than last year.

Statements

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you spend time over the weekend trying to get away from the politics of this place and I know that that is difficult for you because you have to get your tackle ready for Monday morning. In view of the efforts that you have been making to keep abreast of events, I have no doubt that you have noticed that there is an almighty row going on between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hon. Members ask on points of order, "Mr. Speaker, have you had any request for the Minister for so-and-so to make a statement?" I shall not ask that, but instead ask whether you have hada request from the Prime Minister and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement so that we can hear about the conflicting reports? It is high time that we had it all out in the House from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then you would not have to keep sticking your nose in and watching the goggle box to find out what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: I have had requests neither from the Chancellor nor from the Prime Minister.

Consumer Protection

Ms. Joyce Quin: I beg to move,
That this House is of the opinion that government policies have failed to benefit the consumer and have not ensured that the consumer interest is properly taken into account in the run-up to 1992 and the single European market; and calls on the Government to reform and up-date the 1987 Consumer Protection Act, to introduce a new system of labelling of goods in order to provide accurate information on their health, safety and environmental implications, to implement fully the European Economic Community product liability directive and facilitate a speedy adoption of the product safety directive, and to make provision for regular and systematic consultation with consumer organisations on all aspects of 1992 legislation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce for debate a subject of my choice. I feel slightly schizophrenic in that I am raising for debate a subject for which I have Front Bench responsibility, although it is through the private Members' ballot that I have been able to bring forward this subject. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this is a subject for which I have partial Front Bench responsibility, because it is my contention that the Government have failed the consumer, and neglected consumer interests, across the whole range of their Departments and policies. I shall refer to the work of Ministers of several Departments and to how their policies have impinged on the consumer and given the consumer a raw deal.
Not least of the problems, as the motion says, is that the Government have failed to safeguard the consumer from the effects of the opening up of the single Europe market in 1992 and all the legislation that is involved. I make no apology for the fact that this afternoon I shall refer to many of the European issues facing consumers. This is a particularly appropriate time to do so, as we are in the last few days before the European elections. The debate on whether Europe will benefit the consumer and the average citizen of the EEC, as well as what its effects on business will be, are subjects about which we are all rightly concerned.
On many occasions, the Government have claimed that their free market approach to economic policy automatically favours the consumer, offering greater choice and reasonable prices through unfettered competition. This attitude, which can most kindly be described as naive, has come to look more and more untenable during the Government's term of office. I shall aim to show that what is now needed is a considerable improvement in consumer protection and consumer rights, both domestically and via the European Community, including the right of the consumer to be fully informed, the right to be consulted, the right to easy and inexpensive channels of legal redress, improved rights of compensation, and so on.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What makes the hon. Lady say that the European Community is in favour of informing the consumer and giving out information? Is she aware that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 removed origin marking, which was one of the best consumer information services, solely because of an instruction from the EEC? How can she say that that body helps the consumer when the average family in Britain pays an extra £13 a week for its food directly as a result of the EEC?

Ms. Quin: The EEC has had mixed effects on consumers. I shall not be wholly praising the EEC, but nor shall I be wholly condemning it. I shall be picking out the various elements of EEC consumer protection and looking at those examples that need reinforcing. I shall not hesitate to criticise certain aspects of EEC legislation that harm the consumer. It would not be wise to take an oversimplified view of the EEC. I hope that the point that I was making will become clearer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in the debate.
Let us examine some of the recent actions of Government Departments and see what effects they have had on the consumer. One of the main issues, about which we have had several debates and questions, is the failure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to protect the consumer. That is particularly true of consumers' worries and fears about food quality and safety. While modern farming practice is good at producing the quantity that is needed—in many cases, it goes way beyond that, with the production of large-scale surpluses—there is nevertheless more and more consumer concern about the quality of food and, in particular, about the amount of information the consumer is given about the treatment of food.
Recently, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a question about the use of tecnazene—a chemical that inhibits the sprouting of potatoes, thereby improving their shelf life. Potatoes treated with it are not safe for human consumption for six weeks following the administration of the treatment. The Minister informed me that last year about 20 per cent. of potatoes in Scotland were treated with tecnazene, and that a similar percentage were treated in England and Wales, although figures were not available. Apart from expressing my concern that the Minister did not have the figures available immediately, my principal reaction was that consumers are unaware whether the potatoes that they buy have been so treated. If they were treated, they do not know when that happened or whether the potatoes that they are buying fall within the safety limit.
Much concern has recently been expressed about the use of Alar on apples. Again, consumers have no way of knowing whether the apples that they are buying have been treated.
We are now being told that the Government are likely to permit the irradiation of foodstuffs. I oppose that strongly and believe that we should oppose it within the EEC rather than giving way in advance, which is what we appear to be doing. At the very least, food that has been irradiated should be clearly labelled. That will cause the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food problems because there is no foolproof test to show whether foodstuffs have been irradiated, which is a further reason why the process should be banned until a system of proper testing and labelling is devised.
The Consumers Association is calling for the mandatory labelling of all foodstuffs, and perhaps the Minister will comment on that. One of the failings of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is that agricultural produce is excluded. When the Act was being considered, Labour Members pointed out that defect in the legislation. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is present because he led for the Labour party on that issue.
To many hon. Members, it seems that the prodcer rather than the consumer has the upper hand under the

Government's agriculture and food policies. Only through the introduction of an organisation such as the food standards agency, which the Labour party has recently called for, will the balance begin to be redressed.
The activities of other Departments work against the consumers' interests. The most flagrant example is the Government's privatisation programme, especially that of the natural monopolies of water, gas and electricity. From contacts with my constituents and my recent experience gained in canvassing at by-elections, I am aware that, while all those measures are unpopular with the voter, the privatisation of water most enrages consumers. People were especially enraged by the advertising campaign, which told them what they already knew—that they are served by a network of water authorities and that water is delivered to their houses—and the pre-privatisation price rises, which they regard as a massive consumer con.
Most British people are drinking water that falls below EEC standards. Most consumers know that the pressing priority is not selling off water to private interests but investing in the necessary infrastructure and remedial works to ensure that water quality, whether it be drinking or bathing water, is fit to use. I strongly believe that safety and health factors are much more in the consumers' interest than the Government's obsession with privatisation.
The National Consumer Council has pointed to many of the problems facing consumers when having to deal with private monopolies. Page 5 of its publication "In the Absence of Competition" states:
The monopolist can charge prices higher than the consumer would pay in a competitive market and can therefore make excessive profits.
The publication goes on to argue, rightly, for regulation on prices and quality and for proper penalties whenever there is a failure to abide by whatever system of regulation is agreed. The NCC wishes also to ensure that consumers are compensated for any reduction in quality. Consumers are worried that the Government's determination to please their corporate supporters means that consumers will end up with woefully inadequate safeguards. The pre and sometimes post-privatisation price rises have given us prices for certain utilities that are higher than those of our competitors, so not only consumers but industry is set to lose out in the run-up to 1992. Consumers and users are suffering because of Government actions and failings in other Departments. One example is Britain's transport network, which is crumbling because of lack of investment and a short-termist approach brought about by Government cuts and economies which turn out to be false economies when we consider the nation's long-term needs. Whether it is the decaying London suburban rail network, the lack of infrastructure linking the regions to the Channel tunnel or the chaos through bus deregulation in certain areas such as mine in Tyneside, the consumers as users of the services have to bear the consequences of lack of Government support. There is a lack of Government support not because there is no money available for such badly needed investment but because, through dogma, the Government refuse to spend it.

Mr. Tony Faye: Has the hon. Lady overlooked the massive injection of cash for our road system which was announced only two weeks ago by the Department of Transport?

Ms. Quin: I have not overlooked that. It is a bone of contention in my region in the north-east. We feel that some of the roads in our area that have been in desperate need of upgrading for many years—the Al, particularly north of Newcastle, and the A69, from Newcastle to Hexham—are not getting the cash injection that is needed. People in my region are worried because, although the announcement is welcome in certain areas, we still will not be adequately linked to the Channel tunnel. That injection of cash is nowhere near the amount that is needed if we are to compete properly in 1992.
Under the last Labour Government, there was a Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, headed by a Minister with Cabinet rank. Under the Conservative Administration, consumer affairs have been progressively downgraded, so that it is now the responsibility of a junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. That is an obvious illustration of the lack of importance that the Government attach to consumer affairs. Labour's current policy review again talks about a Cabinet Minister for consumers to protect them and give them rights under Government policies.
The record of the Department of Trade and Industry does not give consumers grounds for confidence that their future is safe in its hands. The Department deals with many matters that are vital to the standards, quality and reliability of the goods we buy. Pricing policy, price indications, weights and measures and labelling are all within the Department's remit. Yet it is clear that when dealing with that variety of issues the Department's instinct is always to come down in favour of voluntary action and self-regulation. Indeed, the Minister is nodding enthusiastically as I say those words.
Self-regulation seems to be the Department's watch-word. Yet consumer organisations and consumers want statutory requirements on standards and labelling that are arrived at independently of any firm or industry which in the normal commercial way has a vested interest in persuading consumers to buy its goods. The consumer wants independent and impartial information, but the Government are consistently failing to provide it.
There was great disappointment, for example, about the Goverment's action on misleading price indications, because the code was not given the full statutory backing which many would have liked. Another issue that has come to the House's attention recently is the system of determining the accuracy of weights and measures. Here, too, the Government seem intent on ignoring consumer protestations. As hon. Members will know, a private Member's Bill—the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill—is currently before the House. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs has declared his support for the Bill, although it represents the abandonment of a previous all-party agreement on how to change the weights and measures system. The all-party agreement was embodied in the recommendations of the Eden committee, which met three or four years ago. The committee recommended self-verification of weighing machines in certain circumstances only because the safeguards included were acceptable to industry, consumers and local authority trading standards officers.
The Bill was drafted only after consultation with industry. The Bill's promoter has, rightly, declared an interest, in that he is consultant to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers. Although he has subsequently tabled some amendments, the Bill is

still unsatisfactory to consumer organisations, which rightly feel that it was the Government's job—which they were committed to do—to bring forward the recom-mendations of the Eden committee, which were agreed by all parties, in the appropriate legislative form.
Just today I have seen a report that self-regulation and the voluntary approach are to be extended to estate agents and that a voluntary code of practice is being suggested. One newspaper reports that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has said that he will be calling for a statutory code. If he does so, he will have the Opposition's support. We believe that this is an important matter and that neither a voluntary approach nor self-regulation is appropriate. Estate agents should be obliged through legislation to act responsibly towards consumers.
Another example of the Government's obsession with the self-regulatory approach was provided by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he spoke at a recent conference about the increasingly important phenomenon of what has come to be called "green" or "environmentally conscious" consumerism. In responding to the desire of consumer organisations for a proper system of labelling which would give consumers accurate information about the environmental impact of the goods they are buying, he said that, while he understood the desire to introduce environmental labelling, he favoured a voluntary approach.
I should like an environmental labelling system to be introduced as a matter of urgency. The voluntary approach is not the answer. We need a developed form of the West German Blue Angel eco-label, which is independently assessed and in the administration of which consumer organisations and environmental groups, as well as industry, are represented. I believe that that system is funded by industry but that industry is happy to accept the independent recommendations of the body that administers the scheme.

Mr. Favell: Has the hon. Lady observed that environmental labelling is now proving good business to many retailers and manufacturers and that market forces are bringing about what the hon. Lady is requesting at no extra cost to the consumer, whereas if the House were to enact the legislation for which she is calling a vast army would be needed to ensure that each label contained the correct information?

Ms. Quin: The Blue Angel system in West Germany is funded by industry, and does not, therefore, involve Government money. In any case, such a system need not be expensive. I shall be dealing in a few minutes with the hon. Gentleman's point about industry itself becoming more environmentally conscious.
Incidentally, the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs did not respond to a question that I put to him during Trade and Industry Question Time not so long ago when I asked him his views on environmental labelling. I hope that he will take the opportunity of giving the House his views on that issue today.
It seems that at last the Government are beginning to realise some of the commercial implications in the important trend towards green consumerism. However, a great deal more needs to be done to encourage industry to respond to the boom in demand for environmentally friendly products. That will be especially important if our


"green" consumers are to be able to buy British goods instead of imports from, say, West Germany where green consumerism and industry are more advanced. I need hardly remind the House that we are already running a massive trade deficit with West Germany. Although the Government are beginning such a campaign and industry is starting to respond, I should like more progress. The Government have been prepared to spend many millions of pounds on glossy advertising campaigns in recent years and this is one area in which Government advertising might be welcome.
Consumer organisations are already doing a good job in making consumers aware of the environmental implications of much of what they buy as well as in pointing out the dangers of the pseudo-green claims that manufacturers sometimes make. While I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) that industry is becoming more environmentally minded, I am afraid that there is also some phoney greenery in industry. One can sometimes be tempted to buy a product which claims to be environmentally friendly but which turns out to be wrapped in unfriendly, non-biodegradable packaging. We must take a good, cool and hard look at the claims of many manufacturers to be environmentally sensitive, because theyare not always what they seem.
I am glad that there is also growth in the setting up of consumer organisations specifically to highlight environmental concerns and the need to promote green and socially responsible consumerism. I refer to the valuable work of the Women's Environmental Network, which recently produced a good report on dioxins, and to its campaign to encourage the production of chlorine-free paper products.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On that important point, and taking up the earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems is that the Government's reaction tends to be that if the market will bear the offer of a choice of dioxin-free produce, so be it, but that they are not prepared to intervene to ensure that that choice is made available? Is not that the fundamental difference between the Government's philosophy and what consumers really want?

Ms. Quin: I agree that that is exactly what is happening, although it is not just to help consumers and consumer organisations but because there is a vital need to protect the environment that we should be taking more interventionist action than most of us would otherwise like.
New Consumer, an organisation whose headquarters are in Newcastle, is doing research into the environmental and social implications of many of the goods and services that are currently being provided. I think that I am right in saying that the Consumer Protection Act 1987 had to be put on to the statute book rather hastily in time for the general election, and Labour Members criticised it at the time as far too weak. It already needs strengthening and updating, in line with some of the difficulties experienced by consumers since it was passed and some of the new developments, particularly the environmental developments that I have described. Better labelling is a key factor,

but it is also clear that EEC legislation will be increasingly relevant, and I shall refer in more detail to EEC matters later in my speech.
The consumer also needs much easier and cheaper access to legal redress. Hon. Members may remember the recent case of two sisters who were accused of shoplifting by Tesco. Although in the end they were pronounced completely innocent, they faced ruinous costs. An improvement in the legal aid arrangements is vital for consumers.
We also need a proper statutory code of advertising practice and proper powers to order the correction of misleading advertisements. That would certainly help to counter the many misleading advertisements that appear in newspapers in which loan sharks offer people easy credit without explaining to them that there is a catch, or displaying the rates of interest that they will have to pay.
As I said, agricultural produce and unprocessed foods will also need to be brought within the Act.
There are other anomalies. The Food and Drugs Act 1955 does not cover microwaved or cook-chill food. That is not surprising, but both have recently caused outbreaks of food poisoning and they should be covered.
It would be nice if the Government would announce today their help and support for the establishment of a proper, comprehensive, nationwide network of consumer advice centres. The citizens advice bureaux and many specialised advice agencies do a terrific job, as I know from my contact with them, but I am perturbed by the fact that the network of local authority consumer advice centres has been cut, largely because of the Government-imposed economies that local authorities have had to make. I am even more perturbed to learn that the Government do not even seem to keep centrally the figures relating to the number of local authority consumer advice centres or information about where they are to be found. That lack of figures was made clear in an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
Some excellent consumer advice centres disappeared when the Government abolished the metropolitan county councils. That was certainly the case in Tyne and Wear, where the Tyne and Wear consumer advice centre did a very good job. The result of all these cuts is that there is now patchy provision of consumer advice, with certain regions clearly under-served. I am glad that the Labour party's proposals in recent policy documents would rectify that deficiency.
The Government should closely examine the so-called lemon laws in the United States because its consumer protection legislation could teach us a great deal. It is difficult for people in Britain to get defective goods replaced or to obtain adequate compensation. Years after the problems were first highlighted, there are still far too many cases of, for example, substandard cars being sold and then purchasers having tremendous difficulty in obtaining compensation or a replacement vehicles. There are also far too many examples of poor garage servicing, with cars sometimes being delivered back to their owners in conditions that might endanger them and even other road users.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Lady made a valid point about the difficulty of maintaining good consumer standards because of scarce resources in many local


authorities. Will she pay tribute to the local authorities' co-ordinating body on trading standards? I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister takes his responsibilities seriously —for example, he has made resources available to tackle the problem of flammability of upholstery. However, it would be ridiculous for every local authority to carry out that exercise when it could be co-ordinated by one or two local authorities. It is therefore right that proper co-ordination is acknowledged.

Ms. Quin: I am happy to acknowledge the importance of proper co-ordination and also the good work of the Association of Trading Standards Officers. However, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I do not agree with all of his remarks. It is astonishing that the Government are no longer even informed about the remaining number of local authority advice centres. They have not carried out a study to determine the areas where consumers need a resumption of that service.
I wish to refer to other issues which consumer organisations have raised directly with me and which I hope the Minister will consider. The Consumers Association is concerned about the lack of an adequate certification scheme for gas equipment. Before British Gas was privatised, it had to approve all domestic gas appliances to ensure that they met the appropriate British standard. As, in theory, British Gas is no longer a monopoly, there is no longer any requirement for such items as gas-fired boilers and heaters to meet any particular standard, although I understand that gas cookers are covered by some regulations. The Commission in Brussels has issued a directive that all British gas appliances must meet safety requirements, but the responsibility for that rests solely with the manufacturer as there is no requirement for independent verification. That is another example why we believe that the self-regulatory and voluntary approach is not appropriate.
The Consumers Association is also concerned about the wiring of electric plugs on home appliances. Like most consumers, I am annoyed that I have to buy a plug separately from an electric appliance. Legislation is necessary to ensure that consumers can buy appliances that are already fitted with plugs. Because of the great variety of prices for goods, without legislation consumers may still buy the appliances and plugs separately if that makes the total purchase less expensive. A survey by Which? highlighted th problem of consumers not knowing how to wire plugs correctly, which could lead to accidents.
In the latter part of my speech I will deal with consumer affairs within the EEC and, in particular, the consequence for British consumers arising from the opening of the single European market in 1992. Recently the Consumers Association and the London-based Consumers in the European Community Group produced interesting research and literature on the consumer in 1992. The publications of those bodies made important recommendations to the Government and to European institutions. I hope that, by now, the Minister has read them. When I referred to them at the last Department of Trade and Industry Question Time, he said that he had not read them. They are essential reading for many people, even before European election day on Thursday.
A Department of Trade and Industry press release refers to a speech that the Minister made before the Scottish Consumer Council. It states that the Minister

dismissed criticisms that the Government neglected consumers in planning for the Single Market in 1992.
'Nothing could be further from the truth. We recognise the Single Market is everything to do with consumers.'
Mr. Forth explained that the Government's awareness campaign was deliberately targeted at businesses because it was they who needed to gear themselves up for change, whereas consumers do not have to make special plans.
However, consumers certainly need to be aware of all the decisions being made in the run-up to 1992. I am sure that they wish to know whether their interests will be safeguarded. Consumer organisations certainly need to be geared up just as much as industry does, because they have the job of advising their members and the general public about legislative changes and changes that must be introduced if the consumer is to have adequate protection.
In his press release, the Minister went on to say that he wanted to explode three myths. The first concerned the statement:
the Single Market will not result in lower safety standards.
The second related to the statement:
Furthermore, the UK will continue to negotiate to ensure that the harmonised European standards take place at the higher end of the spectrum—levelling up and not down.
There is a certain inconsistency in those two myths. If it is true that standards are not to be endangered, why is it so important to negotiate to ensure that they are riot so endangered? The negotiations are important, and the results will determine whether standards are to be reduced or raised as we hope.
On 1 June, the Minister attended a meeting of the EEC Consumers Affairs Council. Given all the EEC directives that have already been agreed and those that are currently under negotiation and affect the consumer, the agenda for that meeting could have been endless. However, in answer to one of his hon. Friends at Question Time, the Minister seemed to say that such meetings were rather pointless and infrequent. None the less, some positive gains seem to have been made by the meeting.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): It is important that the House understands that the setting of agendas and the frequency of the meetings, as the hon. Lady probably knows better than any other hon. Member, are entirely for the presidency. The Spanish presidency chose to wait this length of time before having a meeting. The Greek presidency immediately beforehand did not choose to have a meeting with the Council of Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that.

Ms. Quin: I accept partly what the Minister has said, but, given the number of directives that directly affect the consumer, I wonder whether he will now be arguing for more frequent meetings of the EEC Consumer Affairs Council than has been the case.
Some gains appear to have been made at the meeting, notably the joint position agreed by the Council of Ministers on a common system for calculating the annual percentage rate of interest under the consumer credits directive, which I welcome. However, other developments at the meeting give rise for concern. I understand that the draft directive on package travel was raised by the European Commission, but that the United Kingdom Minister was strongly opposed to the directive, even though all consumer organisations to which I have spoken are very much in favour of it, as it offers better protection for the consumer than anything at present.
I remind the Minister that it was not only Labour but Conservative Members of the European Parliament who, in the European Parliament supported amendments which in certain cases strengthened the directive for the benefit of the consumer. However, perhaps that is just another area where there are disagreements within the Conservative party over European issues. There certainly appears to have been a difference of view on that issue between Conservative Members of the European Parliament and the attitude adopted by the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Lady is talking about differences of view apparently within the Conservative party on the future of the European Community. Will she confirm that the former leader of the European Parliament Labour group said:
It is obvious the Common Market is utterly incapable of reforming itself. The sooner Britain gets out the better"?
He said that in 1987, and that is perhaps why he was sacked from that job. However, the new leader said:
The Common Market … has been a disaster for British people.
Does that go along with the pro-European flavour that the Labour party is pretending to give to the British people?

Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has used the labels loosely. I do not know whether he was here when I responded to an earlier intervention, when I said that in my speech I would be criticising certain aspects of the EEC and praising others. I believe that there is a mixture of good and bad, certainly in consumer protection. If we want to widen the debate to talk about the state of the major parties as we approach the Euopean election, I would say that the Labour party is in much better shape to fight that election, and has been much more united that the Conservative party has been during recent weeks.
Will the Minister continue to oppose the draft directive on package travel? If so, will he take national action to prevent tour operators from continuing to breach the code of the Association of British Travel Agents? The breaches of that code were highlighted recently in a report from the Office of Fair Trading. I note that the Minister said something recently about the creation of a holiday ombudsman. While I see the need for someone in authority to follow up the many complaints about package travel, I do not believe that that will in any way contradict the need for an EEC directive in the form that will most benefit consumers.
At the EEC Consumer Affairs Council on 1 June there was a worrying lack of agreement on the general resolution covering consumer protection and 1992. I have been told that our Minister was in a minority of one in disagreement on an issue which centred on EEC rules on the safety and quality of consumer products. The British view was said to mystify the other member states, in that the Minister made no attempt to find a solution that would have allowed an overall agreement. As usual, we have managed to antagonise the other member states without having achieved anything in return. Perhaps the Minister will tell us by what steps he proposes to reach agreement at the next meeting of the Council on that issue.
At the meeting the priority to be given to consumer education was also discussed. Apparently, Ministers do not disagree about the necessity for some system of

consumer education within the member countries, but I wonder whether the Government's recent refusal to countenance the use of the Lingua programme in schools will signify a similarly negative approach to consumer education. I believe that the better informed and educated consumers are, the better that is for our society.
There are other EEC-related issues to which I shall refer briefly. The product liability directive was agreed and is already in force, but it has not been satisfactorily implemented in the United Kingdom to the full advantage of the consumer. The development risks defence, which was a contentious issue at the time of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, has proved to be a problem in relation to the United Kingdom's implementation of that directive.
The United Kingdom should work determinedly for the adoption of a product safety directive which would underpin many of the agreements on standards and so on set within the EEC as part of the 1992 programme. Without a directive such agreements on standards will be unsatisfactory.
The current EEC standards and those to be adopted on a range of consumer products also raise different issues. I shall not go into details, but there is concern among consumers in this country about the standards relating to refrigerators—that is particularly important because of recent worries about food—cooker surface temperatures, electric room heaters, spin extractors, ultra-violet skin treatment appliances, hedge trimmers, chain saws and so on. A tremendous variety of goods and products are part of the discussions on the harmonisation of standards in 1992. The list of issues related to consumer protection is long, but the conclusion is obvious. In all the regulations and the negotiations on safety standards, those standards should be set at the highest level.

Mr. Favell: We are living in a fast changing world. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the EEC should set standards for every product on the market now or in the future? If so, she is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. It is impossible for every product to be examined and a standard set before its manufacture and retail.

Ms. Quin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a more general system for standardisation has already been agreed in Europe. Within that general system one must try to ensure that the standards are as high as possible. That need also reinforces my earlier point about the need for a product safety directive to underpin many of the broader agreements on standards that have been reached.
The EEC cannot simply be about a Europe open for business; it must be about consumers and society. The Community must benefit all citizens within Britain and Europe. The Government may protest that they are concerned to see standards for consumers set as high as possible, but the Government's opposition to recent EEC initiatives to improve the health and safety of workers is well known. I believe that the health and safety of consumers cannot be anything but a related issue.
The organisations concerned with the well-being of the consumer need to be consulted more about all aspects of 1992 legislation. The Consumers Association and the consumers of the European Community group made that point strongly recently. Consumers must be formally involved in the European standard-making process. From


contact with the European institutions, many of us know that many of the EEC decisions are taken by officials behind closed doors. Therefore, it can be extremely difficult for consumer organisations and others to have an adequate input in such decisions.
We are all consumers, and when talking about consumer protection and rights we are talking about something which is vital to a civilised society in which commercial forces operate for the general good, not to the public detriment. Therefore, concern for the consumer is an essential part of concern for society as a whole. Given this Government's record, I do not think it will surprise anyone that it will become increasingly clear that the Labour party is the natural ally of the consumer, to which the consumer will increasingly look in the future.

Mr. Michael Jack: I shall comment on one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), and address one or two agricultural issues. In doing so, I declare an interest to the House because I am the parliamentary adviser to the Produce Packaging and Marketing Association.
In Committee, we had an interesting debate on a European directive on product labelling in the produce industry. We raised issues such as Alar and the other chemicals which the hon. Lady mentioned. The controversy surrounding Alar is a classic example of how information emanating from the consumer industry in the United States, where there were clearly differences of opinion about whether Alar was as bad as one group said, was suddenly picked up by the consumer body here and led to a major scare. When it examined the scientific evidence which lay behind the scare, our own committee on pesticides, which is an independent body with no commercial or Government connections other than the fact that it reports to a Government Department, found no scientific evidence for banning Alar for the treatment of fruit.
The debate did not go on to expose the wider issue of the benefit to the consumer of using Alar. It ensures that apples stay on trees and do not fall off too early and means that the consumer is not presented with a poor quality, bruised fruit which may have other disadvantageous aspects. A hint of a problem is seized on without scientific evidence and promulgated as a new gospel. The scientific evidence surrounding Alar suggested that, for an individual to obtain the same level of input of Alar as did the mouse with the tumours, he or she would have to eat 25,000 times the normal human consumption of apples. I cite that as an example to show that realistic and scientific evidence must lie behind our discussion of many of these consumer issues.
Consumerism touches on the important issue of information. Often, when a consumer has to make a choice about goods, he or she has to fight a battle against ignorance. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East was strong on solutions, but weak on how we could improve the information flow to the consumer. She also gave the impression that we have little consumer protection and that what there is is utterly ineffective. She made it sound as if we were standing at the abyss of consumer abuse, and that she, on behalf of the Opposition, had all the solutions. That is palpably not true.
I have looked for facts and figures to aid me on the subject of information. An article in The Sunday Times of 6 November 1988 showed that:
According to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) 40 per cent. of people in the sample of 2,000 did not know the seller is responsible for correcting matters if, say, an electric kettle does not work.
If we are still at the basic stage of educating the consumer about his or her rights under existing law, I see little hope for the panopoly of legislation suggested by the Opposition in this debate as a solution to the mind-boggling range of problems before us.

Mr. Frank Cook: The consumer's fault.

Mr. Jack: I am not blaming the consumer for this. I am pointing out that one of the key aspects in any consumer transaction is information. Even if European directives or regulations covered every item mentioned by the hon. Lady, could we say with confidence that the consumer would quickly become aware of them and act on them? A short time ago, in November 1988, 40 per cent. of a large sample did not know their basic consumer rights, so I doubt whether a lot of new legislation would take us any further forward.
I note also that the present consumer legislation ventures into the realms of second-hand goods. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 deals with that point. Many of us have received letters from our constituents complaining about defects in products that they have bought, especially second-hand products, yet the Sale of Goods Act already protects people in this respect.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Would it not have been better if the Government had spent millions of pounds on advertising on television and explaining consumers' rights instead of publicising the privatisations of the water and electricity industries in the past few weeks?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman might have made a more telling point if he had paid tribute to the £50 million that the Government put into trading standards and the £8 million grant-in-aid that the Department of Trade and Industry gives to the citizens advice bureaux. So it is not true to say that we are not meeting our financial responsibilities to look after the consumer. The Securities and Investments Board has produced a video and booklet discussing its own affairs.
It can be seen from these examples that consumerism is a complicated business. It covers every sort of purchase of goods or services, and it takes a lot of effort to get through the basics that we already have. I fear for what may happen if the line adopted by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East is pursued; we shall have yet another Euro mountain—this time, a paper mountain of ideas that may be well intentioned but are weak when they come to be applied.
I have some limited experience of consumer affairs—at one time I was employed by Marks and Spencer and had to deal with consumers' inquiries. It was interesting to see how even that reputable business encountered the problem, when dealing with consumers, of working out whose the responsibility is when something goes wrong. We had to point out, for example, that inadequate attention to washing instructions on shirts might result in holes appearing in them, and that was not the company's


fault. If we take some of the hon. Lady's arguments to their logical conclusion, industry will be made responsible for every fault, which would be wrong.
From the front line of a retail establishment we observe a strong relationship between the price of goods and services and their quality. The Conservative Government can take credit for having increased earnings by record amounts. We have reduced taxation and put more money back in the pocket of the consumer, so that, generally speaking, he can afford a higher standard of goods.

Mr. Allen McKay: Rubbish.

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had worked in a retail environment as I have, in Marks and Spencer and latterly in the produce industry, he would have clearly understood that we are upgrading. When did he last visit his local Tesco? The range of goods on display there and in Sainsburys has vastly improved in quality compared with a few years ago because people can now aford to pay for quality.
Inherent in the Opposition's argument is the seductive idea that consumers can be safeguarded. People do not like buying goods that fall apart and are inherently poor in quality and safety. They quickly say, "No, that is not for me." They prefer to buy a good branded item that has been proven in service and they buy it from a reputable retailer. In that way, the market place can best serve the consumer in giving adequate consumer protection.
The laws on goods of a merchantable quality start to open the door to ways in which people can obtain redress if poor quality goods are offered. I had an example of this when I bought my wife a handbag which fell to pieces. After much remonstrating with the shopkeeper, I took him to the small claims court and won the action on the ground that the goods were of unmerchantable quality. I know that the existing legislation works and provides good and cheap redress for the consumer who runs into a problem. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East about the expense of the law. The area of the small claim is the one that most often hits the consumer, and it is the area in which the consumer most often seeks protection through the law.
I have been involved in an interesting area of consumer protection. For the past 18 months I have been working with members of the House Builders Federation to produce a code of practice to regulate the area of private sheltered accommodation for the elderly. It deals with a classic consumer problem that started in an industry that was growing rapidly and had growing pains. Its management and sales style led to problems in that people were getting a deal that was not quite the one that they thought they should be getting. Service charges were going up more rapidly than people had anticipated and the quality of the service in the industry was not as good as they had expected.
We worked first with Age Concern to identify the problem more clearly and with the House Builders Federation to produce a code of practice. On 27 June, before the whole of the industry and with the help of the National House-Building Council, we shall launch a voluntary code of practice to regulate some of the excesses in sheltered accommodation. The code will give excellent

protection to buyers. We have interlocked that code of practice with the rules and regulations of the National House-Building Council on housing quality. If a house builder does not acknowledge the National House-Building Council rules, he cannot get the "build" mark and without that he cannot sell his house of flat. That cunning interlocking of an existing regulatory mechanism in house building with our code of practice on sheltered accommodation will provide for the first time truly meaningful protection against abuse in that area.
There will be an element of discipline because somebody who buys sheltered accommodation in a development and finds that it is not being run in accordance with the good practice in our code will be able to go to the National House-Building Council which will be able to discipline its members. That discipline puts the house builder in a difficult position, because he may not be able to sell the property that he has built. I put that example before the House because the hon. Member for Gateshead, East condemned any kind of voluntary code of practice. The work that we have carried out in this area and on the many other voluntary codes which are registered by the Office of Fair Trading under the 1987 Act is a useful and effective way to go forward in consumer protection.
In relation to the 1987 Act, I have mentioned our code of practice. One of the key features in the Act is the question of misleading price indicators. That is a valuable addition to our consumer protection law. It means that for the first time in sheltered accommodation people will not be able to make false claims about the way that service charges are likely to go. That is a good example of a piece of general—not specific—legislation that helps a group of consumers. Would those consumers be aware of that protection if it were not for the information emanating from my code of practice? It has generated much newspaper comment, and I pay tribute in particular to The Daily Telegraph which has assiduously followed through on the code. Newspapers have a vital role to play in putting forward such consumer information, because they reach a large number of people and can get the message across quickly and effectively so that people can react accordingly.
It never fails to amaze me that we still have the confidence trickster, or the pressurising salesman. Many consumer problems that we are seeking to address result from such people. We have all heard stories of double-glazing salesmen saying, "If you don't buy today, you will lose your 25 per cent. discount." Those are the main bones of contention, rather than some of the more sophisticated consumer arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.
The hon. Lady mentioned the interesting case of the produce industry and Europe. There is already European legislation on common grading standards. All produce sold as class 1 in Europe has to follow these rules and regulations. They are down there, they are agreed to, they are in statute. Has the hon. Lady ever bought a bruised apple, a soft tomato or a flabby lettuce? I imagine that she is honest enough to admit that she may have found such defective produce. However, the EEC grading standards say that such produce should not be sold. The point is that we need good, human input to make the standards work. That is why people such as trading standards officers and Ministry inspectors have an important role to play.
Above all, the trust that the buyer and the seller have in one another is what will determine whether rules and regulations are followed through, and followed assiduously. That is the best form of protection for the consumer. It will mean that if leading retailers find that products are not in line with their specifications they will take action straight away. They will not need an inspector. However, the human input is required to make the rules and regulations work. The hon. Lady put forward many specific ideas, but I wonder whether we shall have the resources to make them work. I know that what made our rules and regulations work in the produce industry was our agreement that we wanted to make a high quality product, because if we did not, our customers would not buy it. That is straightforward and simple.
Other common European regulations work to our mutual benefit. The hon. Lady's suggestion that there should be a European statement on safety can be compared with the reality of what happens in the motor industry. Cars have been produced for a long time, so we have construction and use regulations that lay down the technical specifications against which cars can be built. They are highly geared towards producing safe motor cars.
What will happen in 1992 will lead us further down that road, because we shall then have common standards. That is the right way to go, rather than the way in which the hon. Lady is pointing us. Making general statements about safety in a technical sector such as that of motor cars is no substitute for the detailed objectives of our construction and use regulations and the pan-European requirements for cars on, for example, exhaust emissions. Specific and detailed regulations are worthwhile, but general statements tend to be meaningless.
The hon. Lady's speech gave the impression that there is no legislation on safety. I am glad to see that she now shakes her head, because that underpins the point that I am making. In many sectors—for example, motor car manufacture—excellent legislation deals with the consumer protection and safety issues to which she drew the attention of the House.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at a few specific points because no one can claim that consumer protection is perfect. The Consumers Association magazine Which? does an excellent job in highlighting the continuing need for activity, and local citizens advice bureaux are a useful source of information. I work closely with my local office in Lytham St. Annes. It keeps me fully appraised of important factors.
I am concerned about one or two points in particular. One is consumer credit. Many people, perhaps through lack of education and information, take on consumer credit obligations that they later cannot meet. I was disappointed when the previous Minister would not take up an idea that I put to him. It was that everybody, on taking out a consumer credit agreement, would be given a booklet laying down precisely the nature of the agreement that he was taking on and the obligations that it gave him. It is all too easy to get credit from a shop. Those who may not be as financially aware as others suffer when they take on such obligations without due notice of what they have let themselves into. The credit industry could do something like this itself, but to make certain that it does it should be required to give the information to the consumer. Caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—but the buyer must be aware to beware.

Mr. Favell: Consumer credit is an issue that exercises all our minds and I regularly come across not only young people but parents who are worried about their children who get into debt. As my hon. Friend will be aware, as an infant, which one is until one is 18, one is not responsible for repaying debts. However, once one has reached the age of 18 and is free to vote and fight for one's country, one is responsible for getting out of debt, if one is in debt. That should be spelt out loud and clear.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend. I do not disagree with his solution. However, I am concerned about the question of information, and I should like to see more information made available when people take out credit. There are financial implications and obligations in taking out a life assurance policy, and there is a cooling off period during which one can decide whether the policy is exactly what one wants and one can study the implications of one's signature on the bottom line.
Some interesting things have been said by Opposition Members about guarantees. I notice that in 1986 the Office of Fair Trading estimated that the amount spent by consumers on unsatisfactory goods was £3·5 billion on cars and accessories and £346 million on household appliances. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily by reviewing the question of guarantees, but the Department could do much good for consumers by looking at the terms of guarantees, particularly those that say, "Woodworm treatment: guaranteed for 20 or 25 years." How many companies will be around for such a time to honour long-term guarantees? We all look to guarantees as a reassurance that the product will do the job that it says it will. We should look at the bonding of guarantees, and I know that such a move is supported by the National Consumer Council.
Let me pray in aid of my argument on the general subject of the direction of Community law on consumer protection a speech made by Sir Gordon Borrie which was published in the Journal of Business Law in March 1988. I hope that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East will have a chance to look at it. Sir Gordon says that, originally, the Commission tried to introduce many directives on specific functions, but that they were not taken up very much. He went on to say that the Community developed, in a way that he approved, its approach to more general statements on the subject of consumer law. That is an important observation, by one who sees that as a welcome direction in which the Community should go. It also underlines why the Government are sometimes the odd man out. They see Europe trying to be prescriptive and detailed when what it needs to do is to set the scene, point out the problem and then allow the individual Government, and then the individual state, to solve the problems. The most appropriate and Conservative way of proceeding is to trust the individual, to give him information and to provide him with a framework of protection, which is what the Government have done. I am certain that on Thursday people will take that view rather than agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.

Mr. Alan Williams: May I argue one specific case and cause—the need for a complete and separate department of consumer affairs? About 15 years ago, I was Minister of State for the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. I shall argue for a return to the


basic concept but not the form. I shall be relatively non-political, and while I shall criticise the Government I shall also be critical of the period for which I and my colleagues were responsible for consumer protection.
It is important to emphasise a point that tends to be forgotten. Implicit in talk of the consumer society is that the consumer is king. The history of the consumer society has been one of erosion of the consumers' power in the market place and of an increasing need for the Government or, now, the EEC as a sort of continental authority to back up the consumer's diminishing power. Long gone is the day of the local market, when local producers and local sellers knew local buyers and were dependent on their reputations in the local market. At that time, there was parity of status between individuals. By the nature of the highly desirable changes that had to occur if we were to move to the levels of affluence that the western world now enjoys, a market has inevitably evolved in which that relationship altered massively against the power of the consumer. Mass marketing and mass production removed the decision-maker from the purchaser, making it more difficult for consumers to make representations that matter and count.
Some of the new techniques that are used, such as the use of quality control, have led to the market place discovering errors and, if enough pressure is applied, suppliers putting them right. A quality control system that checks one in every 10 products detects a mechanical error in the system, but the converse is that there is a one in 10 chance of discovering an inadvertent human error. Statistically, such human errors pass through the system more than is identified. If a remote marketing company or remote international manufacturer is involved, it is difficult for the consumer to obtain redress.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Is not the remoteness that the right hon. Gentleman is describing covered by the most basic of our Sale of Goods Acts, which allows a consumer who has bought a defective product to return to the local shop where he bought it and demand redress rather than have to try to seek redress from a remote manufacturing company? The process is rather closer to home and easier for the consumer than the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. Williams: It can be as difficult to obtain redress from a mass marketer as it is from a mass producer. I have written many letters to firms that have branches nationally on behalf of my constituents, because sometimes it is very difficult for them to obtain their legal rights. That is not a political point but a reality of the market place.
That problem is exacerbated by the fact that it is difficult for the consumer to know whether he is making a good or bad purchase decision at the time of purchase because of the increasing complexity of products. Domestic appliances are becoming increasingly complex, products such as foodstuffs have increasingly complex additives and there are technical problems with the irradiation of food. The complexity of products makes it more difficult for the consumer to make a considered judgment about the version of a product that he should buy. It is important, therefore, that there is back-up to

ensure that if something subsequently goes wrong with a product the consumer can be adequately assured that it will be put right.
The House has had to take action against even reputable international producers, who have not hesitated to use the complexities of the law to shelter from what consumers consider to be their rights. One or two hon. Members who are present today were present when we discussed exclusion clauses. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred to guarantees. I well remember the exclusion clauses that we had to make illegal whereby major companies were offering people guarantees that, if they were silly enough to sign and return, removed the rights that they already had at law and conferred on them a lesser set of rights.
The use and type of the market, the nature of products and the increasing sophistication of those who want to protect their selfish interests against those of the consumer have diminished consumers' rights. Further, we are moving increasingly into a credit economy—I shall not make any political points about that, tempting though it is —one of the inevitable effects of which is that if someone makes a mistake they may pay for it long after they are able to get any use from a faulty product.
It is clear that a countervailing force is needed in favour of the consumer. The hon. Member for Fylde referred to Sir Gordon Borrie. I was in the middle of an interview with Shirley Williams to appoint him when I was called out by Jim Callaghan and switched from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to the Department of Industry. Despite the shortcomings of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, for a while it reversed the power balance within Whitehall between the consumer and producer to such an extent that the Confederation of British Industry began to squeal that protection had moved too much in favour of the consumer.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer affairs has found his work fascinating. What I am about to say is not a personal attack on his role, because one must first be an Under-Secretary and then a Minister of State before becoming a Secretary of State. Since the Conservative party came to office, there has been a progressive erosion of the protection for the consumer that was provided in the 1970s. We saw first the abolition of the separate Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and then the subsuming of consumer responsibility within one of the major industrial sponsoring Departments. Within that Department we saw the downgrading of ministerial status so that, instead of the job going to a separate Cabinet Minister, it was given to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Under-Secretaries of State can argue their corners belligerently —I am sure that that is true of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs—but the final say rests with senior Ministers. Those who have been members of the Government know the close relationship that exists in a sponsoring Department between the sponsored industries, their officials and their Ministers. It is difficult for a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to win the argument in an enormous Government Department, with a hierarchy of Ministers of State who are responsible for different sectors of the economy and a Secretary of State who believes that 95 per cent. of his responsibility is directed towards industry and commerce.

Mr. Forth: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that important changes have taken place in the Department since he was such a distinguished member of the ministerial team? The sponsoring relationship has been radically changed as well so that there is now, deliberately, no direct involvement by the Department with industries in the way that he may recall from his days in the Department. That may well have changed things greatly in the context of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Williams: I well understand that point. I understand that the sponsoring divisions no longer exist, but an analysis of the work of civil servants within the Department would show that their work time is devoted more to industry and commerce than to consumer interests.
The sponsoring Department even appoints the consumer watchdogs. The Department of Energy, which has a close relationship with the gas, electricity and coal industries, appoints the members of Ofgas. Because of technology investment, the Department of Trade and Industry has a close relationship with British Telecom. It appoints the members of Oftel. That is not to say that Professor Carsberg is not a formidable man and that he will not do a good job, but the person who is responsible for consumer interests is aware that the Minister who decides whether to reappoint him must consider the demand by the industry that his office is intended to monitor.
The hon. Member for Fylde argued a case for self-regulation and I was interested in the instance that he put forward. The reality is, however, that a voluntary code is only as strong as the coverage of the trade association that has underwritten it and that association's will to enforce it. If a trade association covers only 60 per cent. of the suppliers of a particular good or service, another 40 per cent. are outside its scope. That makes it difficult for the trade association to take a tough line with its members, because they are likely to say, "We will do exactly the same. We will go outside."
It is not just that responsibility for consumer protection has been relegated—it is highly fragmented between Departments. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for food standards. Even if we accept that Ministers want to ensure that food is safe and standards are high, the Department is automatically laid open to allegations of whitewash the moment a major case arises and it appears to be dilatory. In terms of self-interest, it makes sense to take those responsibilities from that Department and give them to a separate Minister for Consumer Affairs.
The Treasury is responsible for credit policy. Incongruously, the Department of Employment—a matter of great interest to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory}—is responsible for tourism. That is an anomalous allocation of responsibilities. The Department of Energy has responsibility for gas and electricity. The Department of the Environment has water responsibilities. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for safety standards in respect of weights and measures and such large sectors of industry as British Telecom. The Home Office has responsibility for standards in television, radio and the media generally. The Department of Transport has responsibility for consumer interests in relation to those companies that supply ferry, air and rail services. Legal services come within the Lord Chancellor's

domain. Taking a wider view of the consumer, all those instances ignore the consumer element in education, health and so on. There has been fragmentation of responsibility for consumer interests in so many Departments that it is difficult to get a cohesive and coherent consumer strategy.
In 1974, we had the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. It did a worthwhile job within a limited context. By creating a Department, the Government pulled together people with a single objective, but the Department failed because its scope was too narrow. Without the price element, it did not merit the status of a Department. Originally, the prices side took half the Department's work but, as that became less important, it was clear that the Department was not viable as an administrative entity. That happened not because the concept of an independent Department was wrong but because the Department was too narrowly based.
One of my first battles in the Department took place when I wanted to take responsibility for safety from the Home Office, which, in fairness, the Home Office was only too happy to relinquish. I lost the battle to get tourism from the Department of Trade. The Department flatly refused to surrender to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection responsibility for package tours, hotel standards and so on. Clearly, those aspects should have been covered by a separate Department.
It is time that we stepped back, looked again at the consumer functions that are submerged throughout Whitehall and considered which could and should be extracted—not which ones the Departments are willing to give up—and given separate Cabinet status through a Department of Consumer Affairs. Such a Department would have the muscle to match the powers of' the sponsoring Departments. It will be even more important after 1992 when we have to struggle with Brussels as well as Whitehall.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I welcome the opportunity to debate this key subject and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on her perspicacity in pursuing it. For a long time, I have had an interest in consumer matters. In the 1983–87 Parliament, I took the initiative through a private Member's Bill to pioneer the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, which became law.
Although Conservative Members may be full of moans and groans—and I shall add to those shortly—I must say at the outset how delighted I am that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs and his colleagues take the matter so seriously. I want to draw the House's attention particularly to the fact that the Government acted with great speed a short time ago in introducing regulations to ensure that much safer upholstery was used for furniture. With the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I expected to have to carry out an all-party campaign, which might have taken years to achieve such a regulation. However, the carpet was removed from under us and he and I were delighted by the speed with which the Department of Trade and Industry acted.
The Government have protected the consumer and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is but one of the initiatives taken by the Department of Trade and Industry. Although I welcome the debate, I deplore the tone of the motion. I


recall the Labour party's lack of interest for a long time in consumer matters when it was in office and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 exempts secondhand goods from the general safety requirements. Although some second-hand goods such as electrical goods are covered by specific safety legislation, others are not. The safety of second-hand and repaired tyres is wholly uncontrolled and there is considerable evidence that potentially dangerous tyres are being sold to the public without any warning or advice about previous use or, more important, major repairs.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East will recall that section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 deals with:
False or misleading statements as to services".
Section 14 has proved virtually unworkable because it requires a level of proof far in excess of that required by other trading standards legislation. It was a Labour party initiative, but it has not worked in practice although trading standards officers have tried to make it work. The Labour party also scratched at the surface of major issues, such as misdescribed holidays, which I shall speak about in detail in a moment. Do the Government intend to review the provisions and to bring them into line with section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which applies to all goods?
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East referred briefly to loan sharks and I wholly concur with her remarks. Too many people are getting into debt with second or third mortgages. I am concerned, as I am sure you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you have read the national press today, to see that some hon. Members are trying to persuade the Minister to remove warning statements such as "Failure to maintain payments may mean you forfeit your house." That warning should be displayed by all reputable bodies to those seeking a loan. I am surprised that certain finance houses have been trying to persuade hon. Members to have such warnings removed.
Another important matter is shop notices. I was appalled to hear about certain notices in Winchester, to see them in Coney street in York, and in other places, advertising closing-down sales, but without any apparent intention to close down. I remember that a jeweller's shop in Regent street claimed that for some 10 or 12 years. However, in Winchester, the notice said that it was only four days until the closing down sale and another was written in similar terms. When are those shops intending to close down? Will it be next week, next month or the year 2000? Shops can continue with such notices and keep refreshing them. As long as no malice is intended, members of the public can be hoodwinked. If they are not familiar with a town or city, they may believe that they are entering a shop where prices have been reduced artificially because it is closing down.
I want now to turn the spotlight on the travel trade, in view of its importance, and its lack of response to complaints. The trade's constant inability to take action has seriously undermined consumer confidence. After the purchase of a car, a holiday is probably the most expensive regular item bought out of a family budget. Travel agents and operators alike market dreams that rarely reach expectations. In 1977, fewer than 4 million package holidays were sold. The growth in package holidays has

been so dramatic that Britain's tour operators expect to offer just under 14 million charter holidays with a value of £3·7 billion in the year to the end of March 1990.
However, consumer satisfaction has hit rock bottom. The Office of Fair Trading reports that as many as one in five people make a formal complaint about their package holiday and that 40 per cent. of foreign trips are plagued by difficulties. Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which came into force on 1 March this year, presumably gives consumers more protection over pricing. The guidelines state:
Travel agents should make sure that correct price indication for holidays is made clear to consumers before booking.
Our travel agents would do well to have those guidelines placed before every clerk,in every booking office, whether Lunn Poly, Thomas Cook, the Co-operative, Hogg Robinson or whichever, and to be reminded of them every 10 minutes of the day for a good month. Do the guidelines mean that consumers should be given accurate prices with no hidden extras?

Ms. Quin: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he inform us whether he supports the European Community directive on package travel? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs does not.

Mr. Gregory: The hon. Lady has pre-empted my remarks. I give hearty support to that directive, which does not go far enough.
I want to deal now with the problem of inaccurate fares. Travel agents frequently fail to find the lowest fare. In a survey carried out by Which? published in May, 83 per cent. of travel agents quoted the wrong fare. I want to stress for the record that the figure was not 8·3 per cent. but 83 per cent. The agents were not asked a difficult question. They were asked to quote the cheapest scheduled air fare to Geneva, Paris or Brussels. Only 17 per cent. of agents found the cheapest fare. Some quoted more than £82 too much, either through incompetence or through instructions to quote only the fares of certain airlines.
Most operators' forms insist that insurance is taken out at the time of booking and not a minute later, and suggest that otherwise the form in invalid. They require the consumer to accept that, unless they tick a box to the contrary—

Mr. Favell: I bow to my hon. Friend's superior knowledge on consumer affairs and, in particular, congratulate him on being a pioneer in consumer legislation in recent years. However, does he agree that it is fair to point out that Britain is a European leader in the provision of cheap package tour holidays? One hears regularly of people from abroad flying with scheduled air fares to this country to take advantages of the many offers here. Are not the reasons why the industry is so successful the fact that tour operators have entered into voluntary agreements and the activities of a private organisation, the Consumers Association, and Which?, its journal?

Mr. Gregory: My hon. Friend may be correct to say that the industry has the greatest proportion of sales, but it also has the greatest number of complaints. Rarely do people go back to the agent who has booked their passage. I recall seeing a cartoon recently of an individual in a travel agents who was asked by the clerk where he wanted to go.


He said that he would like to go on holiday somewhere close to his baggage. That does not strike me as wholly inappropriate.
I have already referred to the difficulties with travel insurance forms. In addition, the cover is inadequate and the premiums are unacceptable. Holiday insurance premiums are usually higher than any broker would obtain and the cover is not as extensive. Exclusion clauses apply if someone becomes redundant or pregnant after booking a holiday, but that booking could have been made many months before the intended holiday. Therefore, the question of liability must be considered.
I also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that many agents are either misinformed or unimaginative. If a consumer purchases a product, it should serve the purpose intended. There is little point in recommending a hotel or venue with no lift or in an area with steep hills for someone who is physically disabled, because such a recommendation could mean that that person is confined to just a few rooms of the hotel.
I do not wish to restrict my remarks entirely to the retail sector and to the travel agents because they often say, "That is not our problem—not in our back yard. The difficulty is with the tour operator." Tour operators have a cavalier approach, often cancelling holidays outright or changing dates. I shall give an example. A couple from Tamworth booked a holiday in Turkey with lntasun. It was cancelled. They were offered an earlier date but could not take it. The holiday was supposed to be a celebration. They chose to take a holiday in Scotland instead and I am jolly pleased that they did so.
Tour operators also change the timing of journeys. I know of pensioners who booked a holiday in Corfu with Horizon specifically because the tour was to depart at 1·40 in the afternoon and return at 8 o'clock at night. However, within days of the intended departure, those people learnt that they were to leave at 11·25 in the evening and return home at 5·40 in the morning. Understandably, they cancelled because the new arrangements represented a quite separate contract from the one that they had entered into.
Many people would like to use their local airport, which makes more sense than bussing people halfway across England. It was for that reason that a family with young children and an elderly aunt chose a holiday that started from Luton, their local airport. However, the operator switched it to Gatwick, a one and a half hour train journey away.
There is also the vexed matter of surcharges, which are not explained and which are operated on a maverick system from one operator to another. Indeed, some firms quote different surcharges for the same holiday. Kuoni Travel Ltd., which normally has a very good reputation, produced separate brochures that quoted different sterling rates for the same holiday. Therefore, people on the same package could face different surcharges—could anything be more ludicrous than that? Yet one faces an uphill struggle if one wants the trade body, the Association of British Travel Agents, to take effective action.
There is also the problem of hotel changes. One can find the chosen destination to be fully booked once one is abroad. I know that ground handlers try to help by putting people in cheaper accommodation for say three nights and then switching their hotel or making the facilities of the intended hotel available later, although they may be four streets away.
Holidaymakers travelling abroad expect a high standard of safety in the hotels and apartments in which they spend their holidays. However, the safety levels all too often fall well short of those required in the United Kingdom. I am sure that many hon. Members regularly watch the Esther Rantzen programme on Sundays and will have been appalled to learn of potential hazards such as lifts without internal doors, inadequate railings on stair and balconies, the lack of life-saving equipment at swimming pools and dangerours cots. A list of consumer dissatisfactions would be longer than a month's supply of Hansard, yet operators continually seek to get out of the problems by saying, "Take your claim to the ground handler in the country in which you suffered on that holiday." Clearly, United Kingdom operators and United Kingdom agents should accept their responsibilities.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend has made some valuable and important points, especially about safety. Has he received many complaints, and has he any reflections, about the other side of the coin—the medical care that people seem to be denied by so many companies? Many of the company representatives seem to deny the people in their charge access to the medical care that is available or that should be available from the expensive insurance that those people have taken out. Such representatives are risking the lives of the people who put their trust in them.

Mr. Gregory: I echo my hon. Friend's remarks. Ground handlers seem to be ignorant of the E111 form and its uses. They seem constantly to depend on the travel insurance that has been taken out and do not provide the adequate safeguards to which most consumers are entitled unless the holidaymakers have taken out a more expensive policy with an organisation such as Europ Assistance, which is again to the benefit of the travel agent, when such safeguards could and should have been organised more properly at the beginning of the process.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, I hope that he will at least confirm that he is unhappy about safety levels and that he would like to see greater responsibility from the tour operators and agents. I hope that he will call on them to ensure that they accept liability, because operators cannot continue to shirk that important point. The regular horror stories in all our postbags would not be so intense if the travel trade took its responsibilities seriously and did not make so many errors in the first place. It should be prompt in offering proper compensation.
Far too many operators try the hard-sell through glossy brochures and have no compunction about cancelling holidays outright or offering different destinations, departure times, airports and flight times.
The message that appears to be coming through is that, although one may have thought that one had entered into a contract, one cannot be sure if, when and where one is going on holiday.
Much of the anger and frustration could be deflected if the travel trade offered adequate compensation. Two tour giants, Thomson Holidays and Horizon, last year launched "no cancellation" offers. I am sure that with his laissez-faire approach my hon. Friend would say that they are splendid companies to do so. That offer seemed to be a guarantee that arrangements would be honoured and that the small print would not be invoked. However,


consumers booking with those companies already know that that offer is not worth the paper that it is printed on because the companies have been sliding out of their responsibilities, offering as little as £15 compensation. That is derisory and it ill becomes their press officers to have made so much of their approach last year.
Tour operators have had their chance in voluntary codes of conduct and have been found lacking all the way along. The time has come for some Government intervention. It is because Government action is called for that I turn now to the EEC draft directive on package travel. It contains a great deal of commonsense and even the Association of British Travel Agents, which is the main body for both agents and operators in the travel trade, has stated that it
accepts that there is a need for additional protection for EC travellers.
That is quite a statement from ABTA, which rarely admits anything. I am delighted that it has accepted that point even though, in its consultation documents to the Minister, it has tried to erode each point of the draft directive. I am glad of that admission from ABTA because we need some redress and the consumer, whom we are trying to support in this debate, needs help.
Press comments have suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister would like a package holiday ombudsman. Indeed, the consumer must have statutory rights which could, by all means, be backed up by a trade body. An ombudsman would be welcome, but we need a trade that is willing and anxious to participate and the holiday trade seems reluctant to do so.
The draft directive calls for compensation to holiday makers who have reasonable complaints. ABTA's submission states:
Many of the risks resulting from the Directive would be uninsurable.
I wonder whether ABTA has heard of Lloyd's of London. Perhaps we could introduce the two parties to each other because there is no such word as "uninsurable".
I remember debating insurance with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when discussing the major consumer legislation of the previous Parliament. We discussed covering the liability for pharmaceutical risks, the extent to which consumers were exposed to risks with new pharmaceutical products and the extent to which the risk was insurable. The answer is that it was insurable; Lloyd's is prepared to underwrite the risk. It is unrealistic, and unbecoming, for a great tour industry not to fulfil its responsibilities properly.
ABTA says that consumers can only realistically expect an organiser to use his best endeavours and have third party liability, which would be limited. In other words, ABTA seeks to transfer liability to anyone other than itself—to the ground handler or to the consumer, perhaps, for having been unfortunate enough to book a package holiday in that particular place. ABTA is shirking its responsibility.
Let us consider the objections. The travel trade says that it is reluctant to offer compensation or take responsibility for the difference in price of the holiday if the price has increased by more than 2 per cent. Other industries quote forward, and stick to their quotes. Take the example of the motor car industry. One may book a new motor car three or four months in advance. The price

may change, but a contract has been entered into and the motor trade honourably allows the purchase to take place at the earlier price.
ABTA says that bland and unhelpful expressions would enter the brochures—for example,
There are sporting facilities usually available.
But that is all that the consumer gets now. Virtually no operator and few agents reveal information about noise. One rarely knows, for example, whether a hotel is close to a busy road. Then there is proximity to the beach. I have yet to see a brochure that properly informs its readers whether it is a sand or a shingle beach. Few say whether there are lifts in the property or set out costs of using a swimming pool, towels or a sunbed. Anyone who has been to the Mediterranean will be aware that war almost breaks out on the beaches between the British and the Germans over the availability of sunbeds. One may discover unexpectedly that there are no shops at the airport. That is one problem that Intourist faces, as I discovered when I had the pleasure of visiting Moscow and Leningrad over Easter. For someone with a young family, it is vital to be able to find soft drinks at the airport, especially if one is to be held there for three or four hours or, as in my case, five hours. We went without refreshment.
What compensation do operators offer for such delays? I cannot find a brochure that offers a penny until 12 or more hours have elapsed. Imagine that. A holidaymaker may go to the airport an hour or two before the required time for the flight and then may have to wait 11 of the 12 hours without compensation. The start or end of a holiday should not be ruined by excessive delays such as that, and we need compensation for shorter delays. In the case of someone who has gone on a weekend break, half a day—a large proportion of the time available—will already have been used, yet he will be offered little or no compensation.
In view of that catalogue of complaints, it is not surprising that Blackpool attracts more British visitors that Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Turkey put together, and long may that last. Operators offering the splendid United Kingdom destinations operate with one hand tied behind their backs. Holiday packages in Great Britain and Ulster are first class, and all concerned take their responsibilities seriously, but those selling primarily overseas lack consumer commitment.
We have waited too long for the overseas package holiday trade to put its house in order. Now is the time to act, and every traveller will journey with confidence this summer if he knows that the British Government have insisted on a fair deal.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Unless speeches are shorter, some hon. Members will be disappointed at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for raising many important issues. I declare an interest, as the speech that I shall make had its genesis a fortnight ago when I looked at some of my flowers and vetegables and found that they were covered with greenfly when they ought not to have been covered with greenfly. I am


indebted, too, to Nicholas Carter, a senior scientist at Rothamsted, who provided me with a great deal of information.
The subject of my speech is the future of the national insect survey at a time when aphids are filling fields and gardens throughout the summer. If this were a personal complaint, I should not raise it in the House, but as it is a widespread complaint, about which something could be done, and as the Government are taking unjustifiable action in cutting agricultural research, I feel fully entitled to do so.
We have had a mild dry May, and the biggest explosion in the aphid population for 15 years. Greenfly, blackfly and other pests are threatening crops but apparently it is intended that the Rothamsted insect survey should close many of its insect traps, provide less information about the spread of aphids and cut its forecasting activities, which are vital to farmers.
One consequence will be that more insecticide will be sprayed as an insurance, in the absence of information about pests. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East, therefore, for bringing me into order by making environmental consequences part of the subject of her motion.
The Rothamsted survey monitors insects using traps sucking insects out of the air and collecting them for future counting and analysis. The first British suction trap was set at Rothamsted experimental station in 1964. By 1970, 10 more traps had joined the survey. By last year, 23 traps, each 12·2 m tall, were in operation—including six in Scotland. As a Scottish Member, I emphasise that we are greatly concerned about the problem that is now upon us in Scotland.
Rothamsted has the most extensive network of suction traps in the world. During 446 site-years its researchers have counted almost 10 million aphids from 300 species. This invaluable database, which allows scientists to make accurate predictions about times of infestation by many aphids, is threatened by the Government's policy on agricultural research, which they regard as a commercial spin-off. An unpublished Government review of agriculture research and development, known as the Barnes report, has identified aspects of Rothamsted's work, such as its forecasting activities, as near market as it can save farmers money by pinpointing times at which they need to apply insecticides to their fields. The Government believe that that work should be paid for by the farmers.
Funds for the insect research survey which come through the Agriculture and Food Research Council's institute of arable crops research are being reduced. As a result, the survey will have to close some traps completely and monitor others for only part of the year. The IRS weekly publication The Aphid Bulletin and Aphid Commentary, distributed by post, free of charge, to more than 300 interested people will not appear this year.
The Government's shortsighted approach threatens an unrivalled database for entymological and ecological research, as well as for farmers. It is likely to lead to the more profligate spraying of chemicals by farmers, who will be unaware of the true extent of any likely aphid attack. The loss of data also threatens efforts to assess whether environmental changes, including climatic changes, are having long-term effects on the insect population.
Workers who empty suction traps look not only for aphids but for aphids' many predators such as ladybirds, hover flies, lacewings, spiders and beetles. All those

captured are kept and catalogued. The damson hop aphid attacks hops. Insecticides can prevent it from causing larger reductions in the yields of hop gardens in Herefordshire and Kent every year. The spraying of insecticides has been so intensive that the damson hop aphid has developed a resistance to many of the chemicals used. The time to spray for maximum effect is when the aphid migrates from its winter hosts—damsons and sloes—to hops. Samples taken in Kent and Hereford over the past 15 years combine with weather details to provide a good database from which to project the start and finish of the migration. The samples revealed that it is possible to use data on temperatures in early spring, rainfall figures for winter and spring and the amount of sunshine in summer to predict the migrations.
All that work is threatened, yet with greenhouse effect conditions, it is even more important. For example, the black bean aphid spends the winter on spindle trees and migrates to crops such as spring beans in May or June. Suction traps provide more data, from an elaborate system of constantly updated forecasts, of the size and timing of the migrations. The system was developed by IRS together with the Government's agricultural development and advisory service and Imperial college, London. Forecasts are based on the size of the previous autumn's migration as measured in suction traps, egg sampling and sampling of aphids on spindle trees in the spring and, finally, the early stages of spring migration. In 1989 researchers expect damage to bean crops in much of eastern England and the west midlands. Crop infestation by aphids has already occurred some two weeks earlier than usual.
You asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have made my point in general and, as the Minister is nodding, I assume that he believes it to be a serious point. Nicholas Carter and others—I consulted widely before the debate—have produced a great deal of information, of which much is available to gardeners. Long-term data such as those provided by the IRS will prove valuable in determining trends in aphid population biology, and such trends may be linked to changes in land use or climate. That role for the survey has not yet attracted a great deal of attention, but it may turn out to be its most important as concern about the changing climate gathers ground. Unfortunately, the long-term monitoring that is essential to such work is often the poor relation of science because it is non-experimental and needs no sophisticated equipment. Thus the Natural Environment Research Council gives a low priority to its biological records centre. The problem is that long-term monitoring is often incompatible with short-term decisions about funding. Once a continuous sequence of data is broken, it can never be recovered.
If such work is interrrupted, let alone brought to an end for some short-term financial gain—quite frankly, an accounting gain—to make the books of a Department look good, great damage will be done. There must be some sort of sequence in that work. There are several million gardeners in this country. Indeed, the Minister represents a Worcestershire constituency. Worcestershire is famous for its gardens and many of the Minister's constituents will think it a heck of a pity if any of the work relevant to the national insect survey is interrupted.
I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has done me the courtesy of coming into the Chamber. He represents a beautiful part of a beautiful city and I can assure him that his constituents are most concerned about


the problems of aphids such as greenfly and blackfly. If the Under-Secretary does not believe that, he should ask his constituents in Davidson's Mains. I hope that the Scottish Office will take an interest in this matter. I shall tell him exactly what I have said and where I obtained my information when we are behind the Chair. I am hoping for two detailed answers—one from the consumer Minister, once he has contacted his MAFF colleagues, and the other from the Scottish Office.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for not wishing to follow his speech because, quite frankly, I did not understand it—[Interruption.] Some of us admit that we do not understand matters, unlike certain Labour Members who interrupt from sedentary positions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on raising this important subject for debate. I apologise for having missed the beginning of her speech, but I was doing some work on something to do with Europe that will occur later in the week, although what it is escapes me for the moment. I was disappointed with much of what she said. She gave a long shopping list of aspirations and ideas about what could be controlled and what sort of standards should be introduced, but I heard no strategy for how to do that. I assume that her remarks came from the same stable as those of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), although he put forward a strategy largely based on his experiences as a Consumer Minister. I had a great deal of sympathy with what he said, although I did not necessarily agree with his strategy.
Two separate roads could be taken in approaching this problem. I am not entirely sure that the Labour party and I want to take the same road. It is right that people should be protected from buying dangerous goods or a service that does not live up to its description. A number of ideas have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House suggesting changes in the law, new regulations and new codes of conduct.
I do not want to go down the road of seeking to tell people what are the best options in what is available, but from much of what the hon. Lady said I detected her wish to go down that road. She concentrated many of her remarks on information. My experience of some of the consumer information services provided by local authorities is that they tell people, "This is the range of goods available and this is what we think you should buy." Local authorities are not equipped to give such advice. It is certainly not the purpose of Government, whether central or local, to spoonfeed people as though they always know what is best, what consumers should be buying and how they should spend their money. Spoonfeeding is very much a Labour party approach—indeed, it is exactly the approach set out in its 1983 election manifesto. No doubt that is why it did so disastrously. The manifesto contained 100 pages telling people how the Labour party would run their lives for them. From the hon. Lady's remarks, that still appears to be very much the Labour party's approach.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman would do well to concentrate on what my hon. Friend the Member for

Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said rather than on what he wishes she had said. I hope that he will now get on with the reality rather than the fantasy.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was rather peripatetic during the hon. Lady's speech. I thought that he entered the Chamber after me and so could not have heard all that she said. I can understand his wish that the Labour party's 1983 election manifesto did not exist. Perhaps he wishes that he had not stood on that manifesto.

Ms. Quin: At what point during my speech did the hon. Gentleman enter the Chamber? He complained about the absence of a strategy, yet I began my speech by saying that consumer interests needed to be taken into account across Government Departments. I referred to certain matters that were later taken up and enlarged upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying that point and I shall certainly read the early part of her speech. I remember looking at the clock when I entered the Chamber at 3.42 pm. I am, of course, delighted to hear that the hon. Lady covered those points.
I wish to take a different approach from other hon. Members to the food issue, and pick up a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. He said, in many ways quite rightly, that gone are the days of the local buyer knowing the local producer. Of course those days have gone. We do not necessarily know who produces the goods. It is important that people should have trust in stores such as Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys and the manufacturers.
That point has been brought home to parents who are concerned about the problems that have been faced by some baby food manufacturers. It is interesting to look at the manufacturers' different responses. Farleys had a milk problem. It is instructive for all food manufacturers to think carefully about what caused the problem in the Farleys factory. In the end, the company went out of business or had to be bought out by, I think, Boots. The company went out of business because people lost trust in it. Did they lose trust in that company because of the problem in the factory? They did not. They lost trust in the company because of the way in which it reacted to the problem in its factory.
The managing director of the company appeared on BBC television and said that there was a problem. That was several days after the problem appeared in the factory, and, until then, the company had failed to tell the public about it. When he finally admitted that there was a problem, in that live BBC interview, the managing director advised people not to buy that company's products any more and to throw away the products that they had at home. The advice to throw those products away was rather ungenerous. As subsequent manufacturers who have had similar problems have said, the managing director should have said, "Return the products to us and we will refund your money." That would demonstrate a more generous attitude.
What finally killed the Farleys company was reluctance on the part of the senior executive to admit that there was a problem in the factory and the company's failure to close the production line when the problem was discovered. As


a parent, when I heard that the company had not closed its production line, I lost confidence in the company. I was clearly not alone, as the company went bankrupt.

Mr. Frank Cook: Quite right, too.

Mr. Hughes: I hope that I heard the hon. Gentleman say from a sedentary portion, "Quite right, too." I agree. [Interruption.] One day the hon. Gentleman will treat hon. Members to a speech. It will be a rare thing. He makes only sedentary contributions when I am in the Chamber.
There has been a marked difference in the problems that are faced by other baby food manufacturers such as Cow and Gate. As the parent of two small boys, I still have every confidence in Cow and Gate and other companies.

Mr. McCartney: And Heinz.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for mentioning Heinz. I am sure that he will agree that those companies were totally honest and, therefore, deserve the support and trust of all parents. From what they say about their sales figures, it is obvious that they are getting that trust. We place enormous trust in the retailer and the producer. Whatever the Government might do and whatever regulations might be in force, that trust is foremost in buyers' minds.
I may have missed what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said, but I was surprised that she did not pay tribute to the consumer safety statistics that have been collected by the DTI. Important changes have been made in the updating of consumer safety statistics and the basis on which they have been collected, including the extension of the system to cover leisure accidents. I am the sponsor of the Safety in Children's Playgrounds Bill. Many groups are seeking to improve safety standards in children's playgrounds. It is important for them to get from the DTI relevant statistics about the number of children who need to be hospitalised, and why. It is easy to have a preconceived idea of why accidents happen in playgrounds. For instance, most people believe that the hard surfaces in two thirds of our playgrounds cause most accidents in playgrounds. However, the DTI has revealed that most accidents happen because children collide while running from one piece of play equipment to another. Without further statistics, how can we introduce further legislation, standards or codes of practice, as I hope that the Department of the Environment will do?
It is important to pay tribute to the work of the DTI—

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is the relevance of the contribution by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)? His remarks about play schools and playgrounds are interesting, but how are they related to the EEC? He is talking about the presentation of British standards rather than EEC standards. Some hon. Members have been waiting a considerable time to debate the poll tax.

Mr. Hughes: People will read that intervention with great interest and note that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is clearly not interested in safety in children's playgrounds, and the parents in his constituency—

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) to the terms of the motion. I am bound to say that he seems to be ignoring the motion, whatever the merits or demerits of any later debate may be. I ask him to have regard to the number of hon. Members who are waiting to speak in a short debate.

Mr. Hughes: I acknowledge that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman's point of order is rather amiss. As you will have read, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the first line of the motion states
To call attention to the failure of the Government to protect the consumer".
It goes on:
that government policies have failed to benefit the consumer".
I was making consumer points. They belie the motion. I should have thought that it was not only reasonable but important for those points to be made.
It is essential to have not only consumer safety statistics but consumer safety campaigns. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on conducting the campaigns. The first was on toy safety. Most of us in the peak shopping time before Christmas saw giant teddy bears in the shops, with retailers helping to promote the safety message There has been an improvement in consumer awareness of fireworks safety. Fireworks are dangerous things. Anything that can be done to limit their use or to persuade people not to use them is good.
There have been electric blanket campaigns designed to encourage the elderly in particular to get their old electric blankets serviced. There is nothing that the Government can do to make that happen. How can we get someone to take an old electric blanket to be serviced merely because the Government say so? However, people can be persuaded, and persuasion is important. In conjunction with the Child Accident Prevention Trust, two booklets on child safety equipment and on the safety of nursery equipment have been made available through the clinics to all new parents. I was impressed, when our last baby was born five months ago, when I received copies of those booklets. I pay tribute to the Minister for making those booklets available.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East said that part of the Government's response to the issue—as she put it, the Government's inadequate response—was privatisation. I do not understand how she can make that point. She said that privatisation had failed to protect the consumer, especially in terms of price. If one considers the prices charged for electricity and gas, they are lower in real terms than those charged previously—certainly those charged under the Labour Government. Those who pay electricity and gas bills know that prices are lower than they were, and that they have not gone up in line with inflation. [Interruption.] It is interesting that Opposition Members either laugh or shout ridiculous comments from a sedentary position, when both the Labour party and its friends in office, the Liberals, did so much to hike up the prices of those two basic commodities. They know that they are responsible for the twin evils of high prices and under-investment in those two industries.
Privatisation of those industries has, first, protected the consumer by keeping the prices down, and, secondly, has caused a substantial rise in investment in those industries, which is another important protection for the consumer.

Mr. McCartney: What about water charges?

Mr. Hughes: I shall be coming to those.

Ms. Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which would be his priority—privatisation of the water industry or bringing our water quality up to EC standards?

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Lady has mentioned the water industry, I will comment on it now. We must compare the record of this Government with that of the Labour Government. As we know—after all, the chairman of the Water Authorities Association has told us this—we are still suffering from the massive under-investment of the Labour Government, which is causing problems on our beaches and with our water supply.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way when I have answered this point.
That under-investment is still causing problems. [Interruption.] It is all very well saying that was 10 years ago, but it is the experts who are trying to run those businesses who tell us the answers, not hon. Members speaking from a sedentary position.
Water privatisation will give us a guarantee that we can have decent standards for our water supply, because the supply will have to be to the standards laid down by the National Rivers Authority. The Labour party, having voted against all those provisions in the Water Bill, has put itself on to the side of those people who are the polluters of the water supply and who do not care about higher standards for water. Of course, we shall have higher water standards. We do not need the Labour party, with its dreadful record in government, to give us any lectures on that point.
Those are important areas for consumer protection. I believe that the Government have a good record on consumer protection, and that they have given it a higher priority by ensuring that there is real work carried out, rather than the pretence of a Ministry. We have heard from the Labour party today that it wants to return to the pretence of wrapping these things up in words. It wants to over-regulate and to tell people that politicians can make decisions better than ordinary people making their purchases. I do not believe that that policy will wash with the public. They want the freedom to make their own decisions, providing that they know that they can have protection from shoddy goods and from false promises. Once we have made more strides in that direction, as we shall in the next few years, people will understand, as in so many other areas, that the Labour party's approach to this matter is entirely fraudulent.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I fear that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) missed almost every relevant point at the core of the debate. If one wants to take the two extremes of the argument, there is the extreme view that says that the free market will solve all our problems and the one that says everything will have to be regulated down to the last detail. Having said that, the main contributors to the debate are saying neither of those things. I believe that the constructive debate is to recognise the limitations of the market place and those of the

regulatory authority, and determine how one can secure a sensible balance. That is how we might achieve a constructive debate.
Given that the context in which the motion is set is the move towards the single market in 1992, the point to stress at the outset is that there is obviously an argument as to what the single market will mean for the consumer. I want to make it clear that I believe that the single market offers great opportunities for the consumer. The creation of a unified economy of more than 320 million people offers a very wide range of choice and opportunity for the consumer, economies of scale for the producer, which will help to bring down costs by securing access to a bigger market, and a higher rate of innovation, both of the product and of technology. Those are the kind of benefits that I believe can and should accrue. Indeed, I am advised that a report by Alber and Ball to the European Parliament in 1983 estimated that the existing regulations across the Common Market amounted to the loss of a week's wages for every worker within the Community. One must assume, therefore, that removing many of those restrictions will be of positive benefit.
I want to make it clear that I believe that the single market is something to be welcomed and to be encouraged. I understand the arguments from Conservative Members that we do not want to go into that situation only to impose a whole range of alternative regulations. I believe, however, that we need to approach the matter in an objective and sensible manner. One argument is to say that a free market is the best possible protection for the consumer. My comment on that is, perhaps, but "it ain't necessarily so," and that there are tendencies within a free market to create monopolies and a situation where consumers are disadvantaged and where they need active intervention to secure redress.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and other hon. Members have mentioned the Government's programme of privatisation. I do not want to dwell on that matter for very long, but it is worth saying that in the run-up to the privatisation of British Gas and to the current privatisation of electricity, the Government have pursued a policy of deliberately raising the prices of those commodities to the consumer by a rate far higher than the rate of inflation. I do not have to defend the last Labour Government—indeed it is not my intention to do so—but to refer to something that happened 10 years ago and to ignore the fact that the price of oil went over $40 at that time—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Here are the excuses.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman says than any excuse will do, but $40 of 10 years ago has to be compared with a price that actually dipped two years ago to $9 and is now under $20. That is a substantial difference. That rather goes with the Government's claim that they have presided over record investment and earnings. Almost every year of this century, barring wartime and the first two years of the present Government, Governments have been able to say that. If they were not able to say that, they would not have been re-elected, so it does not amount to a very substantial or radical claim.
One takeover that I feel has not necessarily added to the benefit of the consumer has been the takeover of British Caledonian Airways by British Airways, which I believe should not have happened. It was brought about as a


direct consequence of the Government's refusal to recognise, when British Airways was privatised as a monopoly, that it was such a dominant player in the domestic scene that it effectively destroyed the possibility of British Caledonian Airways remaining as an independent airline. As somebody who has to make frequent use of British Airways, I do not believe that, as a consumer, I receive adequate treatment in choice or service. Too often British Airways cancels planes at short notice—it is very often the last plane of the day—very often because it has to divert that aircraft to a route on which it faces competition. Therefore, the exact opposite to what is intended follows. Because it has a monopoly on certain routes, the consumer who is completely dependent on British Airways suffers the greatest. Those who would have the opportunity to divert to another airline find that they have a choice, because British Airways cannot afford to leave them without the choice and lose the business to its competitor. The Government should address such problems and should ensure that British Airways operates as a competitor on routes, but, if it is accepted that a certain route cannot sustain two operators, the Government should ensure that the consumer is given the same treatment as would be given on a route where competition exists.
When companies have been privatised as monopolies it has been argued that regulation is necessary. That argument does not divide the House—why else did the Government introduce Ofgas and Oftel if they did not recognise that such regulations was necessary? The argument that divides the House is the extent to which that regulation should be effective. I have no doubt that when the Electricity Bill comes back to the House two important amendments accepted in the other place will be reversed. That is regrettable because those amendments were in the interests of the consumer. When the Gas Bill went through the House, I and other hon. Members pointed out that the provision of choice in the industrial sector was totally inadequate and that British Gas would be taken to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That proved to be correct.
One of the concerns about the single market and its implications for consumers is its effect on and drive towards mergers and takeovers. In recent years we have seen evidence of that. The takeover philosophy is different in different member states. My party believes that the obligation to prove that a takeover is in the consumer's interest should be put on the hostile predator and not on the recipient of the bid. Evidence collected by the Minister's Department suggests that the vast majority of takeovers are, almost by definition, designed not to increase competition or consumer choice, but to consolidate the larger, hostile bidder's position within the market. By definition, that is contrary to consumer interest. General statements of good will are made and we are told that economies of scale will be made and rationalisation procedures will be followed that will benefit the consumer. Analysis, however, suggests that once the bid has been accepted the consumer is worse off. Our proposals would lead to a dramatic improvement in the protection of consumer interests. It is to my continual regret that the Government have said that such takeovers are a matter for the shareholders and that consumer interests do not count. They believe that if the shareholders are willing to sell, that is the only basis on which most takeovers should be decided.
Shareholders are always delighted to sell because increasing their standing in the market place enables them to exploit the consumer for an even greater profit. Why on earth should shareholders resist such an obvious temptation? The Government and the wider community have an obligation to ensure that takeovers are examined for their possible benefit to the consumer.
It is worth making a comparison between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. In that country hostile takeovers are almost unknown, essentially because the structure of ownership within German industry means that it is almost impossible to secure such a takeover without the consent of the main banker of any corporation, who also tends to be the major shareholder.
As 1992 approaches Britain is increasingly vulnerable to takeovers from countries inside and outside the Community and, at the same time, we are unable to secure similar access to the ownership of those countries' markets.
It is interesting to consider the financial characteristics of the European markets in comparison to our own. Mention has already been made of consumer credit. I shall not be mealy-mouthed about it. I believe that the ethic the Government have advanced has fuelled a consumer credit boom that has fundamentally weakened our economy and has meant that many people face genuine financial hardship. I do not believe it is just a case of loan sharks, but the way in which our retailing operators conduct their business. When people go to a shopping centre they are actively encouraged to take out lines of credit for goods and services which they do not actually need, but which they are tempted to buy. They are not aware of how they will pay for such goods and services. I do not believe that consumers are adequately protected against being tempted to take on levels of credit that they cannot afford to sustain. Such credit is even more damaging since the Government have lost control of the economy and have been forced to jack up rates of interest dramatically over a short time. People now find that their level of repayments is far greater than they had anticipated or budgeted for. The code of practice that has operated in some of our retail stores must be altered radically.
It is interesting to consider the two most successful economies of the developed world—Japan and West Germany. They operate on highly conservative financial principles and the level of savings is far, far higher than our own. It is between 15 and 20 per cent. Long-term strategies are carefully considered by those countries. We operate on a short-term basis and our propensity to save could well move into a negative index soon as a direct result of the climate created by the Government.
The Government's policy is extraordinary, as they seem to encourage people to buy goods and services that are not produced in this country with money that most people do not have. On that basis it is not surprising that our economy is getting into trouble. The Government continue to claim that the thrust of their policy is the need to keep inflation under control and yet they refuse to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. All the evidence suggests, however, that our membership of that mechanism would not only help to bring inflation under control, particularly in the long term, but that such inflationary control could be achieved with lower rates of interest. It is interesting to note that the French found a direct correlation between that and—

Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The European monetary system has nothing to do with the motion on the Order Paper and you should bear in mind that a number of hon. Members still want to speak.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is straying considerably from the motion on the Order Paper, but I am sure that he will bring his remarks back to the motion.

Mr. Bruce: Yes. My simple point is that every consumer I meet would like us to have a level of inflation comparable to that in France and interest rate levels comparable to those of other countries. Consumers would benefit from our membership of the European monetary system. It appears that the Prime Minister and her adviser, Professor Alan Walters, are alone in the conviction that their argument is right.
It has been argued that consumers, in order to make a rational choice in the market place, must have access to information, particularly in the case of environmental protection. Earlier it was suggested that the market was already responding to consumer concern and that retailers had managed to give people information by better labelling and that that had meant that, at no cost and without Government action, environmentally offensive products had been and were being phased out. That argument has been advanced in relation to aerosol cans and CFCs, but they represent a relatively small part of the problem in comparison to the range of environmental concerns. Many of the companies that had introduced ozone-friendly aerosols still operate large amounts of refrigeration and air-conditioning machinery and they do not make adequate provision for that machinery's disposal through recycling. Therefore, they are in danger of destroying all the marketing benefits which they have given to the consumer, because of their own industrial effluent. The consumer should know about that.
The importance of information has recently been highlighted by a couple of specific issues. In an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East I drew attention to the issue of dioxins, which she had mentioned. I represent paper manufacturers and fully understand the balance of the arguments. The American markets have proved that consumers demand information and a right to choose. They want to know whether the products that can produce dioxins are being used in the bleaching of particular paper products. They also want the right to buy dioxin-free products.
At the moment, the Government's reaction, which I have raised with Ministers, is that that is entirely a matter to which the markets should respond. That is not good enough. First, there should be regulations to ensure that the information is provided and, secondly, there should be, at the very least, a Government push to ensure that choice is provided. That has happened in the United States. One benefit of the larger single market may be that it will make that easier to happen within the European Community: I hope so.
Last week, I also raised the issue of Alar, which has been banned in the United States, but which is still used in the United Kingdom. Consumers need to know whether an apple product has been treated with Alar. If they have that information, they may well ensure that the market determines that Alar is phased out, but without it they are

unable to do anything other than refuse to have anything to do with apples, which seems to be a draconian response to force on consumers.
I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak so I shall draw my remarks to a close. The Government should acknowledge that there is a role for them, as for local authorities, in the process of securing information, alerting the public and providing the necessary facilities. In a number of ways, the Government are being asked to promote good environmental practices and, so far, they are not providing the support needed. I commend local authorities which, for example, have established a code of practice in their contracts on the protection of tropical hardwoods and the recycling and use of CFCs. It is regrettable that, so far, the Government have not been prepared to promote an initiative to enable the recycling of CFCs or labelling—never mind a code of practice—for tropical hardwoods, ensuring that they come only from sustainable sources. If they do not come from sustainable sources, the community should be entitled to set up a collective ban against them. That is the one way in which the promotion of sustainable tropical hardwoods could be ensured. On both these issues, local authorities such as Sutton and my own council of Gordon have taken initiatives and asked the Government to support them to enable them to increase their services to the consumer. However, so far, their requests have fallen on deaf ears.
When fully developed, the single market offers a wide variety of opportunities for consumers. However, because of the wide differences within the Community, there must be a recognition of common consumer standards and the Government must recognise their responsibility to set that balance. I fear that, to date, they have not done so. I have received all sorts of concerned representations on many matters of developments in a rapidly changing market.
Those people feel that, at the very least, more information should be made available and that, if the Government are not prepared to be the agents to secure the information, the market response is often too slow.
Sheltered housing and the voluntary code of practice have been mentioned in the debate. Only last week, I was approached by a councillor, who was of a more Conservative than SLD persuasion and was concerned at the way in which nursing homes and sheltered housing operations for the elderly in the private sector seemed to be able to pitch their price according to a person's ability to pay. The industry effectively built its profit on running down people's money and was happy to allow them to continue on social security when their money had run out. That suggests simple profiteering: if it is not, I assure the Minister that there is great worry among Conservatives who feel that it looks awfully like it. Those are the sort of matters for which the Government have responsibility.
I hope that the Minister will accept that this debate is about securing a sensible balance between a totally unbridled free market and excessive regulation. The Government are in danger of leaving the balance too much on the side of the free market, which does not work exclusively in consumers' interests.

Mr. Tony Favell: This has been an interesting debate for me, and I think that I speak for other hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for introducing this


interesting subject, which has exercised the minds of the Government throughout the 10 years in which they have been in power.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East, is wrong to suggest that the Government are not interested in consumers' interests. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 was wide reaching, far ranging and far from popular with many of the organisations and concerns which the hon. Lady would consider to be natural supporters of the Government. There was much opposition from manufacturers to the first part of the Act which, for the first time, gave the man in the street the opportunity to sue manufacturers for damage without having to prove negligence. That was completely new to British law and has been, and will be, vastly popular with the consumer. It was, of course, unpopular with the manufacturers.
Under the Act it became an offence, with certain exceptions, to provide unsafe consumer goods. For the first time, it imposed a general duty on suppliers to ensure, with some exceptions—one or two of which, particularly food, I agree with the hon. Lady ought to be reconsidered—that goods supplied were safe.
The Act also made the provision of misleading price indications an offence.
The Act said what suppliers of goods and services should not do. It is far easier for the Executive and those who have to enforce the Act to do that. It is far more difficult to do what the hon. Lady suggests: to say what the suppliers of goods should do. She suggested, and I intervened at the time, that there should be far greater regulation on the make-up of manufactured goods. In a changing world it is impossible to lay down standards for goods that people do not even think will emerge on to the market, to say what they should and should not contain.
The hon. Lady also suggested that there should be far greater labelling. Before I entered the Chamber, I bought a Marathon bar from the Tea Room.

Mr. Frank Cook: This is the first commercial.

Mr. Favell: I am not going to admit to my wife that I bought it or, at least, that I am going to consume it. It is absolutely smothered in information, most of which I do not understand. I understand that it contains fresh milk chocolate with fresh roasted peanuts and a peanut butter nougat and caramel centre. However, I do not understand 62 g E. It gives me the following nutritional information:
Energy 1248 kJ/298 kcal
Carborhydrate 33·5 g
Protein 6·3 g
Fat 16·4 g
(of which saturates 7·4 g)
It goes on to tell me how I can win a trip to the Super Bowl, and gives me various other guarantees, which I cannot read because the print is far too small. There are various competition rules for yet another competition. Finally, it says that it is best before 2 September 1989, which I understand, with another hieroglyphic on the side. It is the first time that I have read the cover on this product and it will be the last. I do not think that any other hon. Member has ever read one of these before.
I suggest that we keep these messages simple. Already, my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, products' labels must show safety warnings and, on food, they must tell us the "best before" date and give details of the product. That

is fair enough, and it is quite enough to go on any label. It is simple and intelligible to someone like me and to 99 per cent. of the population.
It is unreasonable to attack the Government for failing to protect the consumer; we have a long record of protecting him or her. The first great act—some might say it was also the last—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was to introduce his retail price maintenance legislation. That was a great act on behalf of the consumer and it was certainly not popular with those who would be regarded as the Government's natural supporters. We have not stopped there. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will remind us of the Financial Services Act 1986, which was highly unpopular with many of the Government's natural supporters.
We are now introducing legislation to protect the consumer against the lawyers, of whom, alas, I am one. With my lawyer's hat on, I must say that that legislation is not popular with me, but I can understand it from the consumer's point of view. We are also questioning the activities of the brewers—organisations regarded by the Opposition parties as natural supporters of the Conservative party. We fear no man, however, and we are seriously looking into what we regard as the brewers' abuses of their monopoly power.
Finally, we are tackling the doctors. The doctors themselves tell us that, almost to a man, they voted for us in the last general election, but we are not in the business for votes: we are in business for the consumer. We genuinely believe that our reforms are for the benefit of the patients. They are certainly not intended merely to garner votes.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Eric Forth.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here since the beginning of the debate, during which hon. Members who have gone in and out have spoken for considerable lengths of time and were called out of order on numerous occasions by another Deputy Speaker. It is unfair that I should not be allowed at least two minutes in which to place on record a point to which the Minister may want to respond in writing—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he now wishes to respond to the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I regret the position in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself, but it is not for me to get involved in the way in which the debate has proceeded—until now, it has been most orderly—

Mr. McCartney: I want to raise the issue of hazardous chemicals and of possible changes in EEC legislation which will undermine the position in Britain. If I am prepared to write to the Minister, will he make arrangements for him or a colleague in the Department of Transport to meet me to discuss this matter?

Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that whenever he contacts Ministers of any Department he will receive a courteous, full and—I hope—speedy reply. I hope that he will in this case. I certainly undertake to reply to him if he writes to me.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for raising this matter in the way in which she has and for using what is always a precious occasion—coming high in the ballot for motions—to do so. That has enabled her and other hon. Members to set out their anxieties and some important points about the vital matter of consumer protection. It also gives me the opportunity, for which I am grateful, to set out some of my and the Government's thoughts on the subject.
I start, unashamedly and with some pride, by quoting from the White Paper put out by the Department of Trade and Industry in January 1989:
In consumer protection, the policy emphasis will reflect the Government's belief that the best form of protection comes from consumers making well-informed choices and acting in their own interests. To achieve this, information can be more effective than regulation. However, where the case is made out for regulation on safety or other grounds, the Government will not hesitate to act.
That not only encapsulates the Government's view but it reflects the tone of many of today's contributions—and not only from the Conservative side. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made remarks along these lines. We are not necessarily separated by much on this matter. I want to deal with as many of the detailed points that have been made as possible.
To illustrate the Government's attitude, I want to give an example of the sort of approach that we tend to adopt, based on a combination of information when appropriate, and regulation when appropriate. In this context, I want to mention the promotion of timeshare developments, which has worried many hon. Members and their constituents. I have received a number of complaints about timeshare, most relating to the award schemes used to entice people to presentations at which they are often subjected to high-pressure sales techniques. Some end up signing contracts which they subsequently regret. I hasten to add that these practices are by no means universal and I have publicly acknowledged before, and do so again, the efforts of the industry, through the Timeshare Developers Association, working through its code of practice, to improve and maintain standards in the industry. The association's membership now represents about 60 per cent. of timeshares sold to United Kingdom consumers.
The Department of Trade and Industry has actively tried to promote the development of these standards. For example, in 1987, we produced a leaflet for consumers entitled, "Your place in the sun—or is it?" It warned people interested in timeshare developments to be wary of prizes, discounts and half-price offers—

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that the Minister, quite properly, wanted time in the debate to reply to it. I have sat here for the best part of the debate and can remember no hon. Member mentioning timeshare. If the Minister wants to make a statement on that subject, he should take time out of the proper schedule of the House, not out of a private Member's debate.

Mr. Forth: I am trying to develop an argument that combines the provision of information, on which I have just touched, with a reference I am about to make to the role of the Office of Fair Trading, which is directly relevant to consumer protection. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, we shall get there fairly quickly.
I was talking about the information provided by my Department's leaflet, of which we have now distributed about 650,000 copies. Thus far have we gone with information, but from time to time that can be deemed not enough, and this is a case to which that applies.
I have therefore asked the Director General of Fair Trading to conduct a review of the whole range of timeshare problems which will cover marketing and other issues to do with United Kingdom properties advertised here, and overseas properties wherever they are promoted, and which may involve a review of legislative and self-regulatory controls. The Office of Fair Trading would then come up with such recommendations as it saw fit. The director general agrees that this is an appropriate time to examine this problem, which has recently caused some anxiety to consumers.
This is a good example of the recognition of a need for such action, and I am delighted to say that the director general has agreed to involve his staff and expertise in it. I look forward to receiving his conclusions early in the new year.
Another matter that is repeatedly mentioned is safety. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the home accident surveillance system, the provision of statistics by our hospitals which give a firm, factual basis from which to launch policy developments. It is not often appreciated that accidents in and around the home result in about 5,000 deaths a year—as many as, or more than, occur on the roads. About 3 million people receive injuries serious enough to receive medical treatment.
We must not only recognise the problem but develop policies and approaches to deal with it. This is being done. The United Kingdom legal system governing consumer safety provides a level of protection equal to, and probably better than, that in most other countries. Many speakers today have referred to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which introduced significant changes in the law and resulted in major improvements for the consumer. The introduction of the general safety requirement in that law means that it is now a criminal offence to supply a consumer product that is not reasonably safe. This general duty has many advantages over an approach that relies on detailed and restrictive regulations covering individual products. For example, it means that the enforcement officers can take action when a dangerous consumer product appears on the market.

Mr. Michael Brown: There is a problem with that legislation because it is not always applied in a logical fashion. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister of Health is considering using the powers in that Act to ban a certain brand of smokeless tobacco. When my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was Under-Secretary of State, she acknowledged that cigarettes were more dangerous than the product that my hon. Friend the Minister proposes to ban under the legislation. Will my hon. Friend urge some caution about the way in which that legislation is sometimes used, because there is not always logic about the way in which it is employed?

Mr. Forth: If I did not know my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) a bit better, I would suspect that he was being mischievous because he is trying to draw me into commenting on


something that another Department may be doing. If it is using the excellent legislation that I am describing to the House, so much the better, but my hon. Friend must not try to draw me into the substance of a decision that may well be made by another Department. That Department is quite capable of coming to the right conclusion on the matter and I am sure that my hon. Friend is giving it as much advice as he can.
Several hon. Members have mentioned labelling. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 fully recognises the importance of adequate warnings and instructions in relation to the safety of products. The guidance given to the courts on the factors that they should take into account in deciding whether a product is unsafe specifically includes both the manner in which goods are marketed and the instructions or warnings that are given with the products. To support this feature of the law, my Department published an authoritative guide to producing better instructions and warnings for consumer products. That is an important area but it is not often highlighted and has not been referred to during the debate.
Giving people adequate and workable instructions on the use of products can make a considerable contribution to their safe use. We continue widely to promote that practice among manufacturers and designers, and I hope that even in the courts we will see the kind of best practice set out in the guide regarded as a benchmark for considering cases.
The Consumer Protection Act also introduced changes to the law on product liability. The system of strict liablility means that it will be much easier for people injured by defective products to obtain redress through the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) rightly said, there is now increasing redress available other than through the full court procedure. For example, there is arbitration and the small claims procedures, and in many ways we are rapidly improving the way in which consumers, as individuals or through the many consumer organisations, can seek and obtain redress. Experience of these features of United Kingdom criminal and civil law will do much to deter those who may be tempted to supply goods that do not come up to adequate safety levels.
The motion calls on the Government fully to implement the EC product liability directive. Hon. Members may have seen reports that the EC Commission had expressed some dissatisfaction with the way in which our Consumer Protection Act implements the directive, particularly over the so-called "Development risks defence." The Government have made it clear that the Commission's objections will be considered carefully but that we believe that the Act properly implements the directive. I can confirm that the Commission has now written formally to the United Kingdon setting out its concerns, but it is usual practice, and I propose to stick to it, to preserve the confidentiality of these exchanges. However, it will be obvious from what I have said that dialogue is continuing.

Mr. Favell: Is it not true to say that we are one of only three of the 12 EC countries that have implemented the directive?

Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point because it gives me the chance to say that we are way ahead of most of the other member states on most of the directives, not just in that regard but also in effective implementation. We tend to differ greatly from most of the

other member states in the extent to which we comply with and implement directives effectively and in detail. We do that through our excellent system of trading standard officers who are independent of Government and report to local government. It is not always easy for central Government to deal with that system. Given his background, my hon. Friend well understands that our compliance with EC directives is certainly as good as that of any member state and better than that of most member states. In that respect, we are among the best Europeans, and we can be proud and happy about that.
The hon. Lady asked for the speedy implementation of the product safety directive. She knows that a proposal for an EC general product safety directive was tabled by the Commission at the recent consumer council meeting in Luxembourg. The hon. Lady spoke about that. That was the first time that Ministers had been given an opportunity to discuss this very wide-ranging proposal, and it was clear at the meeting that much more work will need to be done before the draft is anywhere near ready for detailed consideration, never mind implementation. We and other member states expressed varying degrees of reservation about the scope of that draft and about the powers proposed in it. It is in the very early stages and it would be quite unreasonable at this time to expect us to approve it or seek to amend it in any detail. It has started its procedure, and we shall work with other member states to see that it develops in a workable and effective way.
I should like to make another point about general safety matters and about the sort of action that we can take when we think that it is necessary. I have mentioned the provision of information and the general legal framework. We take action against individual products or producers when a serious safety hazard comes to our attention and we are persuaded about the nature of the hazard. I shall give two examples. In recent months, we have banned, as we are able to do under the legislation, two products. One was called "Crazy Hands", a novelty toy. We thought that there was a danger that young children might swallow it and choke. We also banned three-wheel all-terrain vehicles which were imported from the United States where they had a track record of being extremely dangerous. We thought that we were justified in banning them, and we did.
Evidence shows that most accidents are caused riot necessarily by faulty products but by people's behaviour. They sometimes use them in a wrong, ill-informed or occasionally irresponsible way. Therefore, we are keen to inform people of the hazards that they may face. As one of my hon. Friends has said, we have conducted and will continue to conduct campaigns covering toy safety, the safety of electric blankets and child safety. We also run an annual fireworks campaign and a Christmas campaign.
I was recently involved in launching a campaign housed in a hazard dome. It is an imaginative and sophisticated exhibition and it will tour the United Kingdom. We hope that eventually it will be brought to millions of people. The exhibition clearly illustrates in an imaginative and exciting way the sort of hazards that can exist even in the home and the measures that people can take to avoid them. That is the sort of positive and helpful contribution that we can make to provide information about hazards and the way in which we want to tackle them.

Mr. Michael Brown: I presume that the hazards to which my hon. Friend refers are health hazards. Why is his


Department responsible for those while the Minister of Health is responsible for the hazard that I mentioned earlier?

Mr. Forth: I see that I have not deterred my hon. Friend. He well knows that the hazards I am describing can result in accidents in and around the home. Details of those accidents are provided by our excellent information system which is based on hospital figures. We take steps to inform people about them so that they may be able to avoid accidents.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Gateshead, East and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and some of my hon. Friends, spoke about environmental implications. Of course we recognise the importance of consumers being fully informed about the environmental effects of products and services in order, if nothing else, for the market to operate effectively. We are aware of the growing interest in labelling as a constructive way in which one can tackle the problem. We welcome the moves that industry is already making to provide and improve information about the environmental impact of its products. In the Government's view, the voluntary approach is the right one, but we are keeping the situation closely under review and looking carefully at the problems that labelling poses and at the experience of other countries which have set up national schemes.
We are discussing the level of interest in such schemes with representatives of consumers, producers and retailers, not least because of the need to respond to likely moves within the European Community. However, I stress that the issues involved are not simple. It is not easy to identify what is or what is not environmentally beneficial, not to identify straightforward ways to describe these problems to the user. It is not always clear how best to illustrate or describe these factors on packaging, sometimes of small articles. We are still at the early stages, and there are many ways to identify the best ways of communicating to the consumer the environmental impact or implication of the products that the consumer is being offered in the market place.
Reference has been made to the importance of informative food labelling to help consumers to choose a healthy diet. Food labels are already required to show the name or description of the food, an ingredients list, the date of minimum durability and the name and address of the responsible packer or seller. In addition, where appropriate, details of storage instructions for use and place of origin must be given.
Food labelling is kept under regular review and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food responds to the need for changes as they arise. For example, it has drawn up and circulated guidelines on nutrition labelling that aim to standardise the presentation of nutrition information on food labels so that consumers can compare products more easily and to help them to choose a balanced diet. The guidelines have been widely adopted and the Ministry will continue to encourage their use until EC-wide proposals are agreed. In many ways, these proposals follow closely the United Kingdom lead and the Ministry will be able to draw on the United Kingdom experience during negotiations in Brussels.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also recognises the need to provide consumer informative

material about food and to help them make best use of information on food labels. In particular, it has recently issued a revised version of its free booklet called "Look at the Label", which explains the meaning of the terms used in labelling.
In all these ways we have provided a framework for the general approach that we are taking on consumer protection and, in detail, shown how some have been able to work, either in terms of provision of information or in terms of specific cases such as the banning of the products that are mentioned.

Mr. Dalyell: As five different Government Departments are probably involved in the questions that I asked about greenfly, could we not have some response by letter from the Departments involved?

Mr. Forth: I was going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point later, but I shall do so now. I listened carefully to his, as usual, impeccably researched and briefly presented case. I undertake to ensure that not only my Department but all other Departments involved look carefully at what he said and give a considered answer. I am sure that he would not want me to give an off-the-cuff answer. We have made careful note of what he said, and Hansard will be scrutinised carefully, so he will get a full and proper response.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend deal with the point about keeping information on food labelling to basics? I have already spoken about the Marathon bar label, which contains so much information that a safety warning would not be read by anybody. Most of that information is unintelligible, except to the most dedicated "muesli".

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made an important point of which we must not lose sight, which is that a balance has to be achieved—the hon. Member for Gordon used the word "balance" and I agree with him—between providing to the consumers usable and practical information that most would be able to understand and use, and overloading a product with unintelligible information. My hon. Friend gave a good example of something that came close to the latter description. We must be careful on what we mandate or regulate for. It is much better to leave the producers to make their own decisions about what consumers can use and make the product more attractive as a result.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked about the Council of Ministers' meeting. She knows that the meeting of the Consumers Ministers covered a number of different issues, to one of which I was delighted to give my full support, that is, the effort to give consumers and their organisations a better voice in the European Community. I have met and continue to meet most of the main consumer organisations here in the United Kingdom, and we are better served than almost any other country by such organisations—a factor of which we can be proud, although we often take it for granted. It meant that when I went to the Council of Ministers' meeting I was able to support any moves—Commissioner Van Miert is interested in this—to promote the representation of consumer bodies in the European Community in the most effective way.
I was also able to reach agreement with the other member states on the directive covering consumer credit, which will be an important step forward in making the


information available right across the Community, to all of our consumers. We agreed on continued support into 1990 for the European level of the hospital information system referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) in order to provide, Europe-wide, a firm statistical basis for carrying forward the detailed consumer protection policy in which we are all interested. We are interested in a policy which is on a firm statistical basis, which is why we are happy to carry along with us the other member states of the Community in continuing to fund that policy.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked about something that I was unable to support, and I want to tell her why, because this is an important point. It concerned the draft resolution for the relaunch of consumer policy in the Community. There was much in the proposal that I was able to support, in particular the principle that I have just outlined—that consumers' views should be taken into account in policy development. I was also committed to the need for effective representation in all Community institutions. However, I was unable to support the resolution because of the one important point that the presidency insisted on including references to quality. The United Kingdom is fully committed to the principle that consumers have the right to effective and accurate information to ensure that they are able to make fully informed choices about the products and services available to them, but we cannot agree that it is necessary, practical or desirable for the Community to relaunch a Community consumer policy programme—

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), having given the Chamber the opportunity to discuss the subject, has the right to reply. As the debate has to finish at 7 o'clock, may I ask you to protect that right and ensure that she has sufficient time?

Mr. Speaker: That right depends on the availability of time. I understood that the hon. Lady wanted only two minutes to answer.

Mr. Forth: I will be guided by what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to reply to as many as possible of the points that have been made. It would not be ungallant of me to point out that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East spent 50 minutes introducing her motion, and I hoped to take full advantage of the time to reply.
The Government's policy is based on a firm, practical and pragmatic approach which strikes a balance between a legal framework, effective action within that framework and dealing with these important matters on a case-by-case basis. I shall look carefully at what has been said during the debate, but I hope that the House will agree that the motion is an unjustified criticism of Government policy. Therefore, if there is a vote, I ask the House to reject the motion.

Ms. Quin: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate.
I have listened carefully to the various contributions and in particular welcome those of my hon. Friends who spoke in support of my motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) gave the House the benefit of his experience of dealing with consumer affairs in government. I am glad that he reinforced the point that, under this Government, consumer affairs have been downgraded, a trend which Labour is pledged to reverse. I understand that the hospital safety certificates, to which hon. Members referred, were introduced by my right hon. Friend in 1975, not by the Government.
The Minister, not surprisingly, strongly defended his position, but I hope that he has listened to some of the comments made by his hon. Friends, in particular the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) who spoke strongly in favour of the EEC package holiday directive, which the Government are blocking.
Consumers have a choice in what they buy, but they cannot exercise it properly in the absence of clear and helpful labelling. Such labelling should be independently monitored because voluntary self-regulation will not be good enough.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) defended the Government's position on certain vested-interest groups and said that the Government were not in the business of votes. The Government will not get many votes unless consumers believe that the Government are taking their interests far more seriously than their record over the past 10 years suggests.
I have listened carefully to all the interesting contributions that have been made, but I still believe that my motion is valid.

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your protection. I came third in the ballot for private Members' motions, but today Conservative Members have wasted time. Government Whips have been drumming up support. When I look about the Chamber, I see that there is a sole Scottish Minister and no pit bull terrier from the Scottish National party. Is this another example of the alliance between the blue Tories and the tartan Tories to keep issues affecting Scotland off the political agenda—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member came third in the ballot; the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) might feel slightly more aggrieved because he came second.

Televising of Proceedings of the House

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move his motion, I should like to say a word about the procedure to be followed. Until 10 o'clock there will be a general debate, during which all amendments may be referred to. At 10 o'clock I shall call, first, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) formally to move amendment (c) relating to a dedicated unedited channel, and, secondly, the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) formally to move amendment (n) relating to proposed restrictions on the type of picture that may be shown. I shall then put the Question on the main Question.
Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I appeal for short speeches so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 141).
In February 1988, the House voted in favour of the principle of an experiment in the televising of its proceedings. It set up a Select Committee, which I had the honour to chair, to consider the way in which the experiment should be conducted. The Committee's report, which is before the House today, is the product of a substantial measure of agreement within the Committee.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be a great help for the House if we could know whether the Leader of the House, by leave of the House, will be speaking again at the end, because it could reduce the number of interruptions in his speech if it is known that he will be replying to the debate at the end.

Mr. Wakeham: If any hon. Member wishes me to answer any query, I shall be present and shall seek to intervene at the end of the debate, if that is for the convenience of the House.
There was a substantial measure of agreement within the Committee. That seemed so unlikely when we started work that the fact is well worth recording. It was an unusually large Committee—of 20 Members—combining not only different political views but very different views on televising the House, yet we were able to agree our report with only one dissenting voice—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet North (Mr. Gale), who wanted to approach the problem in a completely different way, which he will set out later if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. A wide range of views was expressed in the Committee about the rules of coverage, and I shall say something about that later.
The essence of our proposals is that the House should retain overall control, including control of the rules of coverage. The broadcasters will gain access to the signal at a fair price, and an independent company will be given a prestige contract to produce the pictures. The viewing public will be able to see the House at work, and the taxpayer will not have to pay for it.
The administrative arrangements may seem complex, but I will explain them as concisely as I can. The basic idea is a partnership between the House of Commons, the BBC

and the IBA through a joint company, which we have called the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit. The unit will provide the equipment for the experiment and employ an independent operator to produce the signal. It will recover its running costs by selling the signal to the broadcasters at a fair price. The Select Committee will monitor the experiment, and it will be assisted by an Officer of the House, whom we have called the Supervisor of Broadcasting, part of whose job it will be to ensure that these arrangements work smoothly. There will also be a "customers' committee", representing all the consumers of the signal, which will act as an informal channel of communication.
Eight remote-controlled cameras will be mounted just under the Galleries and will be as unobtrusive as we can make them. We went into lighting with some care, as many hon. Members feel passionately about the subject. Clearly, we shall need extra lighting or our constituents will see very unflattering pictures of us, with heavy shadows and bags under our eyes, but we must avoid intolerable heat and glare. We concluded that the best solution for the experiment would be to install eight space lights, which simulate the effect of chandeliers, and which would be suspended from the ceiling of the Chamber. A number of members of the Committee have seen the proposed lights in operation and have found them acceptable. We also recommend that the strip lighting under the Galleries should be upgraded to provide some additional light on the Back Benches.
The House will expect me to speak in some detail about the rules of coverage since our proposals have been given a hostile reception. Those who have expressed their views most vociferously are the representatives of the media, who can hardly be said to be disinterested observers. I say that not in any pejorative sense but am merely underlining the fact that the interests and perspectives of the House and the media are different.
Let me outline briefly the rules of coverage which we propose, the considerations which led us to our conclusions and why I believe that most of the criticism of them is misguided. We thought it right to lay down at the outset a statement of objectives to guide the director on duty. This, in many ways, is the key to an understanding of the rules of coverage, so I will quote it in full:
The director should seek, in close collaboration with the Supervisor of Broadcasting, to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings, with the aim of informing viewers about the work of the House.
The words
a full, balanced, fair and accurate account
were carefully chosen to describe the type of coverage which the Select Committee believed to be desirable. It is, of course, precisely in the interpretation of this phrase that the differences of perspective have emerged between the broadcasters and the Committee. The broadcasters—for perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons—see it as their right and duty to film what happens in the Chamber in exactly the same way as they would an election meeting or party conference, with full journalistic licence to cut away from the speaker who has the floor and to paint an impressionistic picture by the use of a range of different camera shots and editorial techniques.
By contrast, the Select Committee felt—some Members perhaps more strongly than others—that the purpose of television coverage should be to provide something like an "electronic Hansard", designed to provide viewers with a


factual and objective visual record of our proceedings—of speeches and statements made, of questions asked and answered and of decisions taken.
I turn now to the detailed rules of coverage which we recommend to support and implement the broad statement of objectives. I think that even the broadcasters accept, albeit reluctantly, some of the restrictions we recommend, such as the ban on the filming of the public Galleries. We also propose a number of specific guidelines for the director to observe, chief among which are the designation of a standard head and shoulders shot, limited use of wide-angle shots, a strict limitation on the use of reaction shots and a prohibition on the use of split-screen and panning shots.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That sounds a bit like state censorship to me. Is the Leader of the House telling us that we shall not be able to have a three-shot of the Social Democratic party? Is he saying that if the Leader of the SDP decides to cross the Floor and join the Tory party the camera will not be allowed to pan across and show him disappearing into the arms of the Prime Minister? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these restrictions had been applied to the Spanish Parliament some time ago we would have finished up with a shot not of the fellow with the gun in his hand but of the Speaker with his hands up?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a pretty old joke. The hon. Gentleman will make his speech in his own way, but the activities to which he refers do not seem to me to be the proceedings of the House of Commons; at least I hope that they are not. This experiment is to televise the proceedings of the House of Commons.
I believe that these guidelines, taken together, flow logically from our broad approach to television coverage encapsulated in the statement of objectives to which I have already referred. It is only fair at this point to mention that some members of the Committee would have preferred tighter guidelines whereas the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and his hon. Friends argued for a more liberal regime. Nevertheless, I believe that what we have recommended in the report represents the closest thing to a consensus about the rules of coverage that it was possible to achieve among a group of 20 Members representing such a wide spectrum of views on the principle of televising.
I now turn to our recommendations for the treatment of incidents of disorder, which have been the subject of particular controversy. As we say in the report:
Our overall approach to this matter is governed by our absolute conviction that deliberate misconduct designed to secure televised publicity ought not to achieve its aim".
I do not think that I need to dwell on disorder in the Galleries, as it is generally agreed that the Galleries should not be televised at all. Disorder on the Floor of the House is an altogether more delicate question. None the less, starting from the proposition which I have just quoted, I believe that it was right to recommend that, in cases of disorder, the director should not focus on the Member or Members involved.
Of course, as we recognise in the report, there will inevitably be cases where the director will be unsure as to what response is required of him in a given situation. That is precisely why we urge Members to
exercise some tolerance whilst any initial uncertainties over the interpretation of the guidelines are resolved".

I am quite sure that, provided the director has attempted in good faith to apply the guidelines in conformity with the spirit of the statement of objectives, any misjudgments by him will be treated sympathetically by the Supervisor of Broadcasting and the Select Committe.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman should not make too much of this issue, because that is not really what it is all about. If an incident were taking place on the Floor of the House, for example, if the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had seized the Mace and was swinging it about his head, would the person doing the commentary say, "Although we cannot show you this, the right hon. Member for Henley is now swinging the Mace about and he has hit three Members"?

Mr. Wakeham: Overfamiliarity with the Mace by hon. Members on either side of the House would not be shown on television in the normal course of events. As for what the commentator says, I have no plans for any restrictions. The main point is that we do not believe that those who seek to engage in such activities should be seen on television if that is their objective.
The main aim of the relationship between the Supervisor of Broadcasting and the director is to ensure that any mistakes are not repeated. I should stress at this point that, as the report makes clear, we are dealing with an experiment, and the guidelines we have recommended are for the start of the experiment. They could be modified, subject to the Select Committee's approval, as the experiment evolves. If the broadcasters wish to make representations to the Committee, they are, of course, perfectly free to do so. Any such representations will be carefully considered.
Finally, on the rules of coverage, I should like to deal with one argument which sums up the opposition to our proposals—why will the television viewer not be able to see what a person sitting in the Gallery can see? My answer is that the television viewer is going to see only what the broadcasters choose to broadcast; and, even if we had a dedicated channel, the viewer would see only the shot that the director selects. A visitor in the Gallery can allow his gaze to wander over any part of the Chamber, however irrelevant to the proceedings, or even out of the window. The basic premise on which this argument is based is, therefore, clearly spurious.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: My point is referred to in the report. Assuming that all eight cameras will be under the Galleries, does this mean that any hon. Member who, for whatever reason—this has happened during my time in the House—chooses to speak, within order, from the Upper Galleries will never stand a chance of being shown on television to his or her constituents?

Mr. Wakeham: I remember Mr. Speaker making a statement some time ago when he said that he would not normally call someone from an Upper Gallery. If there is a problem, we can consider it during the experiment. As it is envisaged, it would not be possible for such a person to be shown on television.
I believe that the rules that we have proposed offer a sensible middle path between the position in the other place, where the less-heated debate makes it possible not to have any specific rules of coverage, and the very much


more restrictive rules imposed in Canada, which we considered unnecessary. As such, they provide a scheme that reflects most Members' views of the purpose of television coverage.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to take up the right hon. Gentleman's time. Has he any idea of the costs of running the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit and the costs for the operators?

Mr. Wakeham: The cost to the Commons will be about £500,000, of which some £300,000 will be for the archives. The cost to the Commons of the broadcasting part will be relatively small. The other costs will be borne by the broadcasters. The figure is in the report, which I think shows that the cost of the experiment will be about £500,000 for each of them. That is the sort of amount that the broadcasters will contribute. It will depend on how they run and staff the operation.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The Leader of the House will remember that paragraph 59 of the report refers to assistance for the deaf. Does he agree with me that every possible pressure should be put on those responsible during this experiment to have at least subtitling so that those who are denied access to so much of our television can share in this experiment?

Mr. Wakeham: There have been a number of representations on that subject by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). We are certainly doing what we can to provide that assistance. I entirely agree with that objective.
As I said, the rules provide a scheme that reflects most Members' views of the purpose of television coverage. In doing so, they cut across the desire of the broadcasters for a more liberal regime conducive to what they regard as good television, but the very phrase "good television" gives the game away as it accords a higher priority to entertainment than information. I cannot therefore recommend acceptance of the selected amendment relating to the rules of coverage. If it were agreed to, there would be no restrictions on the size of the shot that the director could use; he would have complete freedom to take the camera off the Member speaking to show anything else that was happening in the Chamber, whether it was relevant to the proceedings of the House or not; and he could pan along the Benches at any time to show which Members were present and which were not. These do not seem to me to be suitable guidelines to start the experiment with, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
While the rules of coverage are a matter for us, the use of the signal in programmes is quite properly a matter for the broadcasters, provided they do not use it in light entertainment programmes, political satire or party political broadcasts.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not want to delay the Leader of the House in respect of amendment (b), but does he agree that some hon. Members think that the availability of the signal is a matter not just for the broadcasters, but for this nation and this House, although the Select Committee may not have thought so? Will the Leader of the House at least concede that there is that point of view?

Mr. Wakeham: I concede, of course, that the coverage and the way in which it is shown are matters for the House at the right and proper time, but the task with which the Select Committee was charged was to draw up the rules for an experiment in the televising of the proceedings of the House. It was not charged with considering the whole question of the way in which the proceedings should be dealt with. When I say that the rules of coverage are a matter for us, I am referring to the Select Committee and to our debate this evening, which is dealing with the report of the Select Committee. The other matters are important, but we shall come to them at another time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In reference to the last point, I agree that the House could not possibly dictate to the broadcasters on the precise use they make of the signal coming from the electronic Hansard during the experiment. But how this House votes after the experiment will be determined, to a large extent, by the use the television companies make of the programmes and the use they make of the signals, especially regionally. Although we cannot control the signal, the television companies cannot ignore the feelings in this House.

Mr. Wakeham: That is absolutely true of various aspects of the experiment, especially the area with which I am about to deal—the use the companies make of the proceedings of Committees. Although we cannot dictate which parts of Committee proceedings they broadcast, the Select Committee very much hopes that the broadcasters will make good and adequate use of the Committee proceedings, as well as of the House generally, so that the experiment can be evaluated properly by all of us. Our role is to provide a signal and some guidelines, not to interfere or to attempt to dictate the way in which the signal is used.
The coverage of Committees is an important matter and I underline the importance our report attached to the work of both the Select and Standing Committees. We reached the conclusion—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Wakeham: No, I will not give way because I want to talk about Committees.
We reached the conclusion that Committee coverage could not be approached in the same way as coverage of the Chamber. The broadcasters are willing to finance complete coverage of proceedings in the Chamber from the end of Prayers to the Adjournment on every sitting day during the experiment, but they are not prepared to finance complete coverage of every meeting of every Committee during that period. As there is no public money available to subsidise Committee coverage, the only resources available are those that individual broadcasting organisations are willing to find to pay for coverage which they wish to use. The televising of Committees can, therefore, be organised only in response to demand from the broadcasters. That may be disagreeable—and I know that some members of the Select Committee would wish it otherwise—but it is a sad fact which we cannot ignore.
The report makes clear our hope that the importance that we attach to the coverage of Committees will be fully reflected in the broadcasters' programme plans, although realism lends us to warn the House not to raise its expectations too high, particularly as regards live coverage. What matters above all is that there should be enough coverage, of a representative nature, during the


experiment to enable the House to decide eventually whether televising of Committees should become permanent. On that, the broadcasters have at least said that they will try their best.
If the House agrees to the motion we are debating, broadcasting will begin with the State Opening of the new Session. We recommend that the experiment should continue until the end of July next year, which is long enough to give television a fair trial. Shortly before the end of the experiment, the House will be invited to decide whether televising the proceedings should continue on a permanent basis.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the televising equipment be subject to the direction of the Chairman of the Select Committee, bearing in mind that it is essential that the Chairman can see all the members of the Committee and that the members of the Committee can see all the witnesses to whom questions are being put? If the cameras prevent that from happening, is it not essential that the Chairman of the Committee should have the power to give directions to remove cameras and lighting from their position, if they are preventing the Committee, in his judgment, from doing its job?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on that subject. As the House has approved this report and, therefore, the experiment in the televising of the proceedings of the House, it must be only in the most exceptional circumstances that the Chairman of a Select Committee would seek to put the cameras out. If the Committee went into secret session, the cameras would, of course, be put out. If there are any difficulties, we should remember that this is an experiment. The Select Committee would certainly look into any problem that arose to see whether we could find a satisfactory solution.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have a question about paragraph 87, which deals with the live coverage of Committees away from Westminster. Can we expect to see the televising of the Scottish Grand Committee sessions which are held in Edinburgh?

Mr. Wakeham: As I have said, the televising of Select Committees, Grand Committees and anything other than the proceedings of the House will be done on demand by the broadcasters who wish to do it. I understand that the broadcasters have said that the Scottish Grand Committee when it meets in Edinburgh is one of the Committees that they would very much like to broadcast. I anticipate, therefore, that that will happen and I hope very much that it will happen during the experiment. It is important that the House has the opportunity to see on television all the different aspects of our work, so that we have a better basis on which to make the final judgment, which is the most important judgment in a way, some time next year.

Dr. Godman: We might even see the Nationalists.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to raise too many hopes in these matters.
Amendment (c) tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would prevent the experiment from going ahead unless a dedicated television channel were made available. I think that every hon. Member would agree that if the House is to be televised, the availability of a dedicated channel would be the best way of solving the difficult questions of editing, selection

and balance which trouble many of us. But the House must recognise that providing a dedicated channel on a high-powered satellite which could transmit a signal into people's homes would significantly increase the cost of the experiment to the broadcasters. To impose that requirement on them might well result in the experiment not taking place at all. So while I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's objective, I do not think that we should allow the best to be the enemy of the good.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: In that case, why did the Committee not recommend that the proceedings of the House should be shown on the internal monitors we have in our Committee Rooms? It recommended only that the proceedings should be shown in the Division lobbies. Surely it would be simple to broadcast the proceedings in every office of the building.

Mr. Wakeham: It is not technically possible to do that and it is certainly impossible to do it in time to conduct an experiment that will begin in the autumn. It is, of course, possible to do so in the long term, if that is what the House wants, but it raises big issues. Some hon. Members, who may be very much in favour of televising the House, would be passionately against closed circuit television in offices and around the House. It is a matter to which we shall, no doubt, return another day.
The House has decided, after prolonged consideration, that there should be an experiment in the broadcasting of its proceedings by television. The motion before the House will enable the experiment to take place. I invite the House to support the motion.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I strongly support the motion that we agree with the report of the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House. The arrangements suggested for the experimental televising of our proceedings are not exactly the ideal that I or my Labour colleagues on the Committee would have preferred, but I believe that the proposals are workable and that they meet the legitimate doubts and reservations that were expressed in the debate in February 1988 when the principle of televising was accepted by a majority of 54 votes.
It is only right that before dealing with the proposals in the report I should pay tribute to the work that has gone into its preparation. In particular, I congratulate our Clerks who have managed to boil down 15 months of Committee proceedings, hearings, technical demonstrations, an overseas visit and more than 250 written submissions into a 33-page report which is easy to read and understand. I am also grateful to our technical advisers and Officers of the House who contributed to assessing and demonstrating the practicalities of what was being proposed.
Curiously enough, I should also like to thank my fellow members of the Select Committee who put in so much effort and even made the sacrifice of a visit to Canada, during the recess. I pay tribute to the eight Conservative Members on the Committee who originally voted against televising the House but who accepted the February 1988 decision of the House and now support the recommendations for the experiment. I personally thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) whose


practical experience as a producer of television current affairs programmes was of great help to me and to other Members.
Finally, and even more novel, I pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who, having voted against televising, nevertheless worked extremely hard, both in chairing our proceedings and in private, to put together practical proposals that would be acceptable to the House. The extent of his success was amply demonstrated last Thursday when the remarkable edifice that he had constructed was topped out by the Prime Minister's announcement of her support. Some of his Cabinet colleagues are green with envy and want to know how he got such a public statement of support, but, whatever the explanation, all this means that whatever fate may befall him in the threatened Government reshuffle, the Lord President will go into the history books as the Leader of the House who brought television cameras into the Chamber. I think that he will pleased with that.
This is an historic development because it will permit the people of this country to see as well as to hear their elected representatives at work. With the exception of a number of what might be described as wholly unreconstructed exclusionists, no one can object in principle to being shown on television if we concede the principle of being reported in Hansard, misreported in newspapers and heard on the radio.
However, a substantial number of hon. Members have legitimate practical doubts and reservations about the impact of the cameras on the workings of this place and about the trivialising capacity of television. Much of that doubt and uncertainty springs from a politician's distrust of the news media—distrust between the reporter and the would-be reported. There will always be tension between politicians and journalists and I believe that there should always be that tension between us. It is not the job of journalists to give us an easy time but we can and do expect them to be reasonably fair. In relation to what happens in the House and its Committees, we also expect them to be reasonably representative and not unfairly selective. They must try to maintain a reasonable balance between the parties, between the Front and Back Benches and between Members from different parts of the country. As the report makes clear, to assist them in that task it is intended that the House will monitor their output.
The Select Committee's report is designed to secure our legitimate concerns without trying in turn to deprive the television broadcasters of the rights that they must have in a democracy, because a Parliament has no more right than a Government to tell broadcasters what to do.
The first proposition in the report is to protect the interests and integrity of the House by putting the whole operation of the cameras under the control of a House of Commons Broadcasting Unit, a Supervisor of Broadcasting employed by the House, and a Select Committee. That means that the broadcasters will not control the signal that is made available to them, but for the period of the experiment the broadcasters will foot most of the bill and provide the equipment. For any permament televising arrangement, the Select Committee believes that the House should establish a broadcasting unit as a Department of the House—as an electronic

Hansard—making the signal available to those who want to use it and maintaining an archive to which anyone should have access.
We have looked into the technical requirements for the introduction of remote control cameras in the House and are satisfied that the necessary improvements in lighting can be achieved without unacceptable levels of glare or heat.
Although other members of the Select Committee are satisfied that the arrangements for the remote control of the cameras will work, I still have some residual doubts about the speed of response of the cameras, especially at Question Time, and about whether they will pick up Members quickly enough. However, that is something that will become clear during the experiment.
Many hon. Members have been rightly concerned to ensure that there is television coverage of Select Committees and Standing Committees, including the Scottish Grand Committee. We have looked carefully into that and propose various experimental arrangements that we believe will prove acceptable and from which a great deal should be learnt before the experiment comes to an end. Of course, we cannot force the broadcasters to show the proceedings of Select or Standing Committees, but in our meetings with them we have emphasised our wish for such coverage. In any case, evidence from the United States suggests that Select Committee proceedings at least are likely to prove attractive to the broadcasters. They have done so there and there is no reason why they should not here.
We have also placed great emphasis on the need for coverage by the broadcasters of matters raised, whether in the Chamber, Select Committees or Standing Committees, which are of particular interest to viewers in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions. That is likely to be of particular importance to Back Benchers. The Select Committee pressed the broadcasters hard to ensure that they would be able to cope technically with the additional traffic that would result from more regional coverage. Assurances were given by the broadcasters and we look to them to honour those assurances. We have emphasised to the broadcasters that their regional coverage during the experimental period will be a major determining factor for many hon. Members when the House considers whether to have the cameras in permanently.
Although the House will have direct control over the signal that is made available for both broadcasting and recording, we will not have similar control over what use the broadcasters will make of that signal. We can restrict the use of that signal—

Mr. Bidwell: I intervene now for the reason that I sought to intervene during the speech of the Leader of the House. Many of us who have been doubtful about televising over the years and who are shifting our view about it and will be greatly governed by this debate when deciding which way to vote are concerned not so much about the cameras being switched on but the conditions under which the cameras will be switched off. As I understand it, what is strange about the report is the role of the Chair—of you, Mr. Speaker—and the traditions that we have given you and that you have exercised fairly—mostly—over the years and the extent to which, if the House were—

Mr. Tony Banks: Switch him off, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bidwell: I am concerned about what you, Mr. Speaker, would do, but you are much too friendly for me to admonish you in any way. I am concerned about control of the cameras when the House is suspended, as it has been, mostly as a result of exercises that have already been referred to, such as the throwing of tear gas bombs that burnt a hole in the carpet. I am concerned that there seems to be no reference in the report to the role of the Chair in decision-making about when the cameras should be switched on and switched off. That point completely puzzles me.

Mr. Dobson: The report deals with that point, stating that it would be best if you, Mr. Speaker, did not have the facility to turn off the cameras because there would be great shouts, cries and rows about those occasions on which you chose to do so and, probably even more importantly, about those occasions when you did not. We should not like that responsibility to fall upon the Chair in such circumstances.
The one thing that we can do with the signal is to restrict its use, and we should restrict it in some ways. For example, as the Leader of the House has already said, the Select Committee proposed that the signal should not be used in advertisements, party political broadcasts or comedy programmes or any combination of the three, but we cannot insist that broadcasters use material which they, in their editorial judgment, do not want to use. The House can reasonably expect that broadcasters will make more use of actuality from these proceedings than they do of the still photograph with voice-over, which is what they are reduced to at present.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned that broadcasters may be happy, or at least willing, to obey the new rules during the experimental period and then, should the House decide to have cameras permanently, they would go wild and ignore the rules. We ought to have a standing Select Committee to ensure that the rules are kept both during the experimental period and afterwards, should the House decide to keep the cameras in permanently.

Mr. Spearing: The House may know that I was a member of the first Select Committee which dealt with sound broadcasting. We developed a very satisfactory code of practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that, at least to start with, it might be a good thing for decisions to be on a sessional basis if the television cameras became a permanent feature—for very good procedural reasons?

Mr. Dobson: I am not sure whether a sessional basis would be the right one, but we would need to make the continuing broadcasting of the House conditional upon the rules being kept.
That brings me to the present rules on broadcasting. I am a fan of the "Today in Parliament" programme and an avowed enemy of "Yesterday in Parliament". Therefore, I welcome the undertakings given by the BBC as outlined in paragraph 56 of our report, and the hope expressed there that these will be adopted by the other broadcasters. I hope that the BBC will apply them throughout its organisation.
Hon. Members will note, however, that while ITV through Channel 4 is proposing a daily afternoon

programme including live coverage, the BBC is proposing such coverage only on Tuesdays and Thursdays at present. I hope that before the experiment begins the BBC will discover that we also meet on other days of the week. It seems to have enough people here on other days of the week.
Many hon. Members would like a dedicated channel which would provide live continuous coverage of all the proceedings of the House, and I am one such Member. The Select Committee looked into this, but our investigations have shown that there is no prospect of achieving such a dedicated channel by the beginning of the experiment. Our report suggests that the rapid developments in this field should be monitored and that the idea of a dedicated channel should be pursued and promoted.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall read to the House letters from British Aerospace which make it clear that that company is in a position to offer two options for transmission on a dedicated channel from October this year. If the Committee did not receive similar correspondence, it can only be said that it did not ask for it. If it had, it would have received the answers that I received in correspondence and telephone conversations.

Mr. Dobson: If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had read the report of the evidence, he would know that we attempted to have dealings with British Aerospace, in seeking some immediate solution to the problem of a satellite channel, but it could not deliver in time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Ex-Nimrod equipment.

Mr. Dobson: I dispute any suggestion that British Aerospace proposed to use abandoned ex-Nimrod equipment.
There is no real prospect of one of the limited number of terrestrial channels being dedicated to the continuous coverage of the House. The only practical solution is a satellite channel. If the House decides to allow the cameras in permanently, we should be prepared to finance a dedicated satellite channel as part of our commitment to parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Those of us who did not serve on the Select Committee are grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the efforts that they made in this difficult matter. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that if, in spite of his good efforts, the House rejected the Committee's proposals, it would not necessarily result in a more liberal regime? The Select Committee would have to go back and report again, which might allow a dedicated channel to emerge. Is that a possibility?

Mr. Dobson: That is certainly possible, although I am embarrassed by the fact that, having fallen behind most other Western democracies by not allowing the electors to see the elected at work, we have now also fallen behind the Soviet Union. I think that it might be best if we got on with it.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Western democracies to which he referred all have dedicated channels?

Mr. Dobson: They have all sorts of different methods of reception and, to my knowledge, not all of them have dedicated channels. The other major significant feature is that the market for satellite and cable television is very different in Canada and the United States, and at a very different stage in its development.
If we consider arrangements for the permanent televising of the House, we should accept that, if necessary, it should be paid for entirely from public funds if that would produce the best arrangements. It would surely be better to have public investment in promoting parliamentary democracy than to accept a second best that someone else was willing to finance.
One aspect of the report has already attracted considerable criticism, partly from the broadcasters but also from others. I refer to the proposed guidelines governing what may or may not be shown by the cameras. My hon. Friends and I argued that the guidelines were too restrictive and, despite the best efforts of the leader writer for The Guardian, Labour Members voted for a more relaxed approach. We accept that what happens in the Galleries should not be shown because that would lay the House open to a demo a day. It is surely right, however, that we should permit any deliberate action by an hon. Member or hon. Members on the Floor of the House that can be reported in newspapers to be shown on television. If someone behaves in a disorderly, silly or boorish manner, why should that fact be kept from the people who elected him? Evidence from abroad suggests that the voters do not like to see such behaviour and may take their vengeance at a later stage.
We should also prefer broadcasters to be permitted to show the reaction of other hon. Members to what an hon. Member is saying. That is preferable to the proposed rules in the report.

Mr. Cryer: I am interested to know why in the list of highly restrictive rules there is a rule to say that an hon. Member's papers must not be shown. Surely it would benefit the public to know if an hon. Member was reading a brief provided by a lobby organisation. That would allow the public to see not just the remote control of the cameras of the television closed shop but the remote control of hon. Members.

Mr. Dobson: There is some merit in that suggestion, but I can envisage circumstances in which an hon. Member from whatever political party might be referring to papers with a note saying, "Don't raise this unless the other lot raise it first", or words to that effect. It might be better if the information were not available.

Mr. John Redwood: Has the hon. Gentleman cleared this part of his speech with the Leader of the Opposition who was not keen for the public to hear the whole of his interview the other day?

Mr. Dobson: If hon. Members had not been attending this debate, they could have listened to the Leader of the Opposition on "Wogan" this evening—fully, extensively, truly and accurately reported. There is a slight difference. In future, hon. Members will know that everything they say here may be carried unless they behave in a disorderly manner, in which case it will not be carried.
Despite my reservations, I commend the whole report to the House. I shall be voting for it. I believe strongly that it deals satisfactorily with the practical objections to

televising the House. What we say in the House is already reported through other news media and we should now permit its direct coverage on television. We must remember that most of what we do in this place needs to be reported if it is to have much impact. Those who report us are as much a part and parcel of the democratic process as those of us who serve in the House. We must ensure that they play their part in our democracy in a responsible way.
It could be argued that those who insisted, despite all sorts of pains and penalties, on reporting the old, undemocratic House of Commons made a greater contribution to the development of democracy than did those on whom they reported. Until then, those in power had claimed not only that ruling the country was a matter for the privileged few, but that it was only of interest to the privileged few. The journalists and the pamphleteers breached that wall of privilege.
Until the advent of modern technology we, the elected representatives, could not address directly from this House those whom we represent. Instead, we have had to rely on journalists to act as go-betweens, and on many an occasion they have been rather inadequate go-betweens. As that great democratic Socialist Aneurin Bevan pointed out when he called for the televising of the House so long ago that I was still at school, through the medium of television hon. Members can have a direct relationship with those who elect them. Neither they nor we would have to rely on the fallible intermediaries of the press. That argument still holds good.
Broadcasters must understand that the argument that television permits a direct relationship between the elected and those who elected them requires that they keep their editorialising to a minimum. That is why the continuous coverage of a dedicated channel has such appeal. Most of us accept that the news and current affairs programmes must edit what we say, but the broadcasters must behave responsibly and, in particular, keep their commentary to a minimum.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend makes an important point about broadcasters on current affairs programmes keeping their comments to a minimum. The premier political programme put out by Central Television—the former employers of our hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—previewed this debate last Thursday. Jon Lander introduced this place not only as "the palace of varieties" but described the
twice weekly shoot-out at the OK corral with Ma Thatcher and the boys.
That is a description of this place from a premier television station in its main political programme of the week. If that is the style and content of what Central Television is planning, all the forebodings of my hon. Friends, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), will come to fruition. I hope that that does not come to pass.

Mr. Dobson: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's reaction to such a description. Hon. Members will no doubt keep a note of that sort of occurrence, to say the least, during the experiment. It may be that the actual portrayal of what happens in this place will slightly undermine the cowboy description.

Dr. Godman: From the answer given to my earlier question to the Leader of the House, can I assume that all hon. Members who served on the Committee are in favour


of televising the whole of the proceedings of, for example, the Scottish Grand Committee when it meets in Edinburgh? Those meetings last for two and a half hours.

Mr. Dobson: If the Scottish television companies want to show the whole of a Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh, they can do so. It would be fatuous to suggest that we could force upon them an obligation to do so especially if, for example, the British Open were being held at St. Andrew's. I cannot imagine that it would add to the popularity of Scottish Members if their contributions were shown rather than the last few holes of the Open.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we will have to consider the way in which the television companies portray the whole of the work of Parliament, not just the exciting bits? It is interesting that the only two occasions on which the proceedings of the House have been broadcast live since I entered Parliament in 1987 have been when the House has been discussing issues in which the press are interested—the televising of Parliament and the Official Secrets Act. From the number of press in the Gallery tonight, it is clear that they have turned up because we are discussing a matter of interest to them. Many hon. Members want television to give an accurate portrayal of all the work of the House, not just the matters in which the press are interested.

Mr. Dobson: Quite unusually, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's desires. However, in a democracy we cannot insist that the broadcasters, the journalists or anyone else show what they do not think should be shown other than if it were on a dedicated channel, which most people favour as soon as it is technically possible. We must continue to bring pressure upon the broadcasters to ensure that they provide something approaching what might be described as a representative sample of what is happening in this place.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is making a point that has support on both sides of the House. A dedicated channel would avoid all those problems and must be the most desired option. The report says that while the experiment is being monitored consideration will be given to the introduction of a dedicated channel. Will my hon. Friend give a firm commitment that the next Labour Government will provide for such a channel out of funds voted by Parliament and not look around for a commercial deal with some broadcasting undertaking?

Mr. Dobson: Having taken part in the Committee's deliberations, I am reasonably convinced that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want a dedicated channel as soon as that is technically possible. Even so, it must be remembered that even if we had the power to force the provision of a dedicated channel, we would never have the power to force people to watch it. They would have the choice, and that is what we want to provide. They would probably still get the bulk of the coverage of what happens here from the news and news magazine programmes on other television channels. Nevertheless, a dedicated channel would provide the protection of ensuring that everything was shown.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his peroration. Is he aware that

researchers at Aston university have set up a £60,000 study into the experiment of televising Parliament, during which they will assess the behaviour, the language, the appearance and the intelligence in debate of hon. Members? Of course, Labour Members have nothing to fear from such an assessment, but has my hon. Friend considered that as the study will be carried out by a professor who specialises in television violence it may be incomplete unless a continuous feed of Parliament's activities is seen on television?

Mr. Dobson: As I have made clear, I am in favour of a dedicated channel providing full coverage as soon as that is possible. Some hon. Members would do well to fear their electors rather than a few professors from Aston university assessing their performance.
The many interventions during my speech have made it clear that there is considerable concern about the editorialising and the smart-Alicking of commentators—especially, if I may say this, of the BBC. I for one do not mind being portrayed, in Cromwell's phrase, "warts and all", but I do object to some clever dick from the BBC adding jokeshop warts to the ones that I already possess. Hon. Members will be looking carefully to ensure that what the broadcasters do during the experiment sticks very closely to the undertakings that they have given in their evidence and to the rules that we have laid down. If they do that and enter into the spirit of the experiment, as hon. Members are doing, it should work.
If what I have said by quoting various people, including Aneurin Bevan, has not entirely converted some of the doubtful Conservative Members, I put to them two soundly Tory mottos— the Churchill family motto of "Trust the People", and, if that is not good enough, they can stick with the Duke of Wellington and "Publish and be damned".

8 pm

Mr. John Biffen: The Register of Members' Interests does not disclose that I have written a book. As the book is about the House of Commons, and as its prospective sales must relate, I hope, to the growing public interest that will be engendered by television, and as this evening holds out the daunting prospect that it could be remaindered even before it is published, I thought that I should place that fact on record—at least my publisher would wish me to place that fact on record.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on giving us the chance to take a decision that will nudge further forward our experience of televising the House. It is a modest decision and it clearly has all the hallmarks of compromise. It is the classic in that sense. Also, the arch compromiser, the spectre and the moral inspirer must have been Lord Reith.
I can think of nothing more designed to dehydrate this place than the proposals in the report. I say that with no spirit of hostility but with a great sense of gratification. It is important for the House to come to a decision which clearly embraces a wide range of opinion of those who support and oppose the experiment. My right hon. Friend deserves our thanks for the skill with which he has put together a point of view that I hope will command majority support.
I am quite certain that, in the long run, the central decision cannot hold. Paragraph 26 of the report refers to a head-and-shoulders shot. That is a shampoo approach to


public affairs. It destroys the true character of the House of Commons. It is and always has been theatre. As long as it tries to represent the wide range of opinions that are argued outside in the saloon bar and are put in a rather different form in this place, it will retain its vitality. It must accept that the challenge of television is that it will do that with cameras. For televising to be made acceptable, we require a degree of self-restraint on the part of hon. Members and the televisers. Such self-restraint would be more difficult to secure on the part of hon. Members than of televisers. I have no doubt that it could be secured.
If Parliament wishes to retain its vitality and to secure a link and an affection with the British public, when there are plenty of other institutions seeking to rival it, it knows that it must come to terms with the most powerful element of the media. This evening we take one small step forward, but forward it is, and I hope that my right hon. Friend gets a resounding majority.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am happy to take part in this debate, and I join with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in commending the Select Committee for the way in which it carried out its work and for its workmanlike and positive report. The experimentation arrangements have been clearly and succinctly set out. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I support the conclusions set out in the report.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are certainly prepared positively to consider the amendments. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) provides that the service should be set up in a certain way. It is of prime importance to minority parties that full on-line broadcasting should take place from day one. But I would not wish to delay the holding of an experiment on that basis. In an intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that he has an explanation for getting round the problem. I look forward with interest to hearing it.
The objectives are fairly set out in the report. They are to achieve a full, balanced, fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the House of Commons—an unvarnished, warts-and-all account. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will test the experiment on that basis, but we have our own perspective. We were elected under an electoral system that does not leave the composition of the House of Commons in proportion to the balance of votes cast in the election. No hon. Member needs any reminding that, in the last general election, our alliance parties, as they then were, secured about 22 per cent. of the vote and we ended up with just over 20 Members.
That puts us in a difficult and peculiar position. We are trying to reflect the views of about 7 million people who voted for us. The opportunities that are given to us in Parliament do not enable us to do that. That is no reflection on the way in which the Chair conducts the business of the House; I do not make that point at all. We are in a difficult position because we must try to give a decent account of ourselves to the people who voted for us. If there are only two dozen or so of us in terms of

parliamentary strength, it makes our position peculiarly difficult in terms of what we must do in facing up to broadcasting requirements.
I do not think that it is possible to discharge a responsibility to the people who voted for us in a full balanced, fair and accurate way if we are not properly treated in the allocation of broadcasting time. We do not get anything like 20 per cent. of the parliamentary opportunities under the existing conventions of the House, and that is a problem for us. We are prejudiced in the share that we get as of right in participating in the proceedings of the House.
The Procedure Committee says that it is not right to make any changes in procedure in advance of the experiment being tested. There is a certain logic in that argument but if the Procedure Committee is not prepared to admit any changes to try to make sure that the balance of minority parties, and my party in particular, are not addressed, it leaves us in a difficult position. The Procedure Committee said that it will closely monitor the experiment to see whether modifications are desirable. I lay down that marker for the future consideration of the results of the experiment.
From their evidence to the Select Committee, and from correspondence that we have had with them, we know that the broadcasters are saying that, that their coverage will be based on the number of parliamentary seats and nothing more. They regard it as no more than their duty to do that. If that is true, again, we as a substantial national but minority parliamentary party will have difficulty in trying to accommodate that approach. If we simply accept indefinitely the situation as set out by the Select Committee, the Procedure Committee and in the evidence given by the broadcasters, we cannot possibly give full value to the 7 million people who voted for us at the last election. I do not believe that, with edited highlights, there is any reason why balanced programmes cannot be produced. That is the message that I want to send out from my party to the broadcasting authorities this evening.
The principle of votes cast as a basis for allocating broadcasting time has been used in similar political contexts—certainly it has been considered in the rules for party political broadcasts. Votes have an influence and should be brought to bear when considering the allocating of broadcasting opportunities in the House. If during live coverage it is not possible to put the view of the Social and Liberal Democrats because the procedures of the House discriminate against the calling of hon. Members from that party, we believe that broadcasters should have a duty to explain why that is so. I do not believe that the Select Committee report goes far enough in making that point clear.
One of the clearest results of the experiment will be an overwhelming cry from the public for a need to change the proceedings in the Chamber. Once they have seen an unvarnished, warts-and-all account of what goes on, how matters are conducted, how time is used and what procedures and Standing Orders are employed, there will, rightly, be an outcry for a massive programme of reform of the procedures, which I would support.
In the experiment, the broadcasters must take account of the fact that they have a duty to make the proceedings intelligible in terms of such matters as hours and Standing Orders. If the Leader of the House is to reply to the debate, will he clarify the simple and interesting question that has been put to me? Supposing attempts are made to produce


television programmes to demonstrate the outmoded and archaic methods that we use in the House, will there be any inhibition on the television company using edited film extracts from the proceedings to make that point? I hope that there will not he. However, some of the restrictions contained in the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee report put that matter in doubt. I hope that the Leader of the House will make it clear that there will be no such restriction on the way in which the rules and procedures are looked at by television companies.
Althought I have not time to develop the point here, I believe that the introducton of television cameras will precipitate the argument that the procedures of the House are ripe for change and that the way in which we conduct business here is simply not suitable to sustain the best system of government and the most efficient process of democratic participation for a modern democracy in a country such as ours. A clear need for change in that direction has been shown.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has on a couple of occasions made the point that the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh should be televised. I understand, because the report makes it clear, broadcasting of Committees will have to be demand-led. In terms of the Scottish dimension, I believe that it is essential that the Scottish Grand Committee should be televised. I fear that, looked at from a Scottish perspective, many people in Scotland, if they study the television reports of the proceedings in Parliament, will think that Scotland does not receive its fair share of debating time in the House, which some of us have been saying for a long time. I need only to cite the example of the inability of Scottish hon. Members to get at the heart of what is going on in the Scottish Office, because they are restricted to only one Scottish Question Time every four to six weeks.
It is not just a Scottish problem; it is a wider regional difficulty. I note that the Select Committee report indicates that the members of the Select Committee were aware of some of the problems of getting the live broadcasts transmitted in time for programmes produced in the regions not to be prejudiced by the demands being made simultaneously over two to three busy hours of the day by the national, London and south-east broadcasting organisations.
I hope that urgent consideration will be given to the ability of smaller and regional companies to make a proper contribution and play a proper part in the televising of the proceedings of the House. To that end, is it possible for the Select Committee which is monitoring the results of the experiment—I do not know whether that is the most appropriate body to do it—to keep and publish a log over a 12-month period of what excerpts are used, in what direction and by which company in which programmes? We could then have a complete picture of what use has been made of the film that is presented by the broadcasting units. It is important that we satisfy ourselves that regional broadcasting authorities get a fair crack of the whip.
I have always supported cameras coming into the House, as most of those on the Opposition Benches have done. I believe, however, that the danger is that the broadcasters will glamorise the House as consisting of two rival teams locked in mindless opposition, as we see so often in this place, and the reasoned, middle way will always be edited out. When people watch coverage of the

Commons, they expect to see a balanced debate reflecting the views of the parties for which they voted and not just a two-party Punch and Judy show.

Mr. Roger Gale: I address the House as the only member of the Select Committee who voted againsto my right hon. Friend's report. It will be widely assumed that I did so because I am opposed to televising the proceedings of the House. Following the vote in February 1988, I accepted entirely the will of the House and 1, and those who thought as I do, did our best to ensure that, if the House were to be televised, it would he done in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
I commend the report of my right hon. Friend and I congratulate him on the compromise that he has achieved. In the month that it took the Committee to debate and to prepare the report, largely stimulated by our interest, there have been considerable technological advances. The cameras have been improved and miniaturised, much greater effort than was given before has now been given to the change in lighting in the Chamber, and, as a television producer and director, I am satisfied that very many of the technical arguments that I raised when we first debated the issue have, as a result of our interest, been solved.
So why did I vote against my right hon. Friend's report? I believe that the House is about to miss a great opportunity. I moved amendments in Committee to suggest to the House that, if we are to go down this road, we should go entirely down it. I said that it is possible, as is done in the Canadian Parliament, which has been cited long and often in these debates, to provide every lion. Member with the "Oasis" information system. That is a desk-top monitor that could give every hon. Member not only television broadcasts from the House, but all other news services, the data services from the Library, the information services that would allow us to print out the pages from the Vote Office that we need on a day-to-day basis, which in itself would save I suspect several rain forests a year, and it would enable us to have a Division bell override. In Committee, Members on both sides of the House chose to reject the public expenditure that would be necessary to provide that system.
However, there is a further stage, and it is that concern to which I believe the House should only address itself tonight. If we are to carry out the televising of the House and the broadcasting by television of the House, it should be available in its entirety to the electorate.
In the 1988 debate virtually every speaker in favour of televising the House addressed himself to the enhancement of democracy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House said that the proposal will bring the House of Commons to the people. What the House of Commons is being offered tonight and what the public are being offered is quite simply a confidence trick. It is a conspiracy designed to prevent the public from seeing the House of Commons at work. I suppose that I should take some satisfaction from the knowledge that those of us who were originally opposed to televising the House have won the argument if the motion goes through unamended tonight.
It is possible to convey the proceedings of the House unedited to the public and it is possible to do so immediately. Earlier my right hon. Friend suggested that the costs would be such as to dissuade broadcasters from


embarking upon the exercise. The Opposition spokesman suggested to the House that he would really like to have a dedicated channel, but that that might delay the experiment and that it was not technically possible. Tonight the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell Savours) will seek to move an amendment to introduce a dedicated channel to the experiment. It is technically possible to do so, never mind in October, but now, and it is affordable.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Mr. Gale: I would prefer not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because, since he is a member of the Select Committee, I am sure that he will seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
The cost of a satellite transponder would be somewhere between £2·5 million and £3·5 million for a year.

Mr. David Shaw: That is peanuts.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend says that that is peanuts and in news media terms it is. On an agency basis—the sort of system by which the newspapers, radio and television buy the Reuters service or the Press Association service—it is peanuts. The maximum cost of £3·5 million a year would be shared not only by the BBC, but every independent company in this country and among cable news network, C-Span, CBS, CBC, Australian Broadcasting and other organisations around the world whom we are told would want that service. Shared among all those organisations the cost, as my hon. Friend suggests, would be peanuts.

Mr. Tony Banks: How do we get it in Newham?

Mr. Gale: I believe that cable news network would want to carry the service on a pan-European basis—

Mr. Banks: I said Newham, not Europe.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me as, for one fleeting moment, I thought that Newham was part of Europe.
The money could be spent on astra transponders that are available now. We would then have not only the unedited televised proceedings of the Chamber but, for the same money, we could have up to 10 sound channels with still pictures with wiped-in inserts of the person speaking. That would enable us to carry, albeit in limited form, not only the live proceedings of the Chamber from, as the Americans say, "gavel to gavel" but the entire live proceedings of up to 10 Committees simultaneously.
The satellite service would satisfy the fears of those, such as our Scottish friends, who are genuinely concerned that their service will be elbowed out of the way. They are worried that when it comes to the crunch, when the deadline comes and it is five minutes to six and there is a major story breaking in the House of Commons, they will not get the line coverage. The satellite feed, however, would provide every regional station with the sort of service that they need. It would provide those that have the Amstrad dish for £150—those who want the full satellite service from the House of Commons—with that coverage.
It is technically possible now and it is affordable. British Aerospace told the Committee—the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) got this completely round the wrong way and he should

acknowledge that—that it could do the job in a specified time, that it had the technology for the uplink and that it could do so to an astra transponder immediately and probably to its own transponder in three years' time.
There is one additional asset that I believe some hon. Members will find interesting. With the satellite system it is possible to carry instant subtitles for the deaf. That can be done by the kind of machine that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) uses day to day in the House. The satellite system would use a slightly upgraded version of that machine. Therefore, every deaf person in this country could have an instant transcription of our proceedings and that transcription could be instantly printed on a data basis as an immediate electronic Hansard that any person in the country with the dish could call up.
Tonight we have an opportunity to do one of two things: we can genuinely enhance democracy in a way that all those who sought to persuade the House back in February 1988 claim that they want to do or we can offer the country and the media a con trick—the edited highlights and lowlights designed, as I have said publicly, to tart up the "Nine o'clock News" and the "News at Ten", but not much else. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the amendment that will be moved by the hon. Member for Workington and I hope that it will be carried. If it is not, I hope that the House will reject the report and that it will tell the Committee to take it back and get it right.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I regret the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and particularly his reference to con tricks, as I believe that the proceedings of the Committee during the past year or so have been in a different spirit.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the fair and open manner in which he presided over the workings of the Committee from start to finish. I approached the Committee as a novice in such matters as I had never sat on a Committee where the effort was on attaining consensus rather than emphasising division. I did not know how that could be achieved and I was interested to see how the Committee would work. Every Committee member, with the exception of the hon. Member for Thanet, North, would agree that the Committee worked well and constructively and that the report that was published, while not suiting anyone absolutely, was certainly the honest product of honest endeavour. For that we owe much to the Leader of the House. We also owe him much for the way in which he presented that report tonight.
The central aim of those of us on the Committee who supported the experiment was to attain a consensus that would be acceptable to the House. We were not particularly interested in making gestures or in standing out for points of view that would be patently unacceptable to all the House. We believed that the exercise was far too important for such an approach. For that reason my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and myself were a little disappointed to find ourselves vilified in, of all places, an editorial of The Guardian. That editorial told us that we should hang our heads in shame for putting our names to the report. I do not know whether I greatly care for the reputation of my


hon. Friend, but I thought that that was a dreadful way for The Guardian to treat its former Scottish football correspondent.
Those of us who worked in that spirit were prepared to accept a compromise. Of course, we knew that it would be easy for us to posture and come back to the House with a terribly liberal and radical report on how the experiment should be conducted. It would have been easy to divide the Committee. Frankly, I would have hung my head in shame if we had tried to play party politics with this and, in the process, lost the experiment. I hope that the fact that we were prepared to accept a consensus and bury our differences means that we have produced a report that will be acceptable to the House.
All the Opposition Members and the great majority of Conservatives on the Committee approached the report with an open mind. There was a school of thought that the proceedings should have been cut short and that the BBC and ITN should have walked in, said what they were going to do and we would get on with it. However, after hearing the evidence of the BBC and ITN, it was not a point of view which I could share. Those of us who instinctively favour service broadcasting were persuaded that their evidence was not good enough and that we should explore other avenues; we began to do that.
I think that everyone on the Committee would agree that technically, editorially and in every other way the Committee's work developed and improved, and new ideas were opened up as a result of what we heard from some of the independent companies which came to speak to us. On the other hand, some of them were total chancers and we were able to separate the sheep from the goats without too much difficulty.
On the Conservative side of the Committee there was, for some time, a heavy lobby on behalf of a large, independent private company. It was to the credit of Conservative Members that they did not simply lie down in front of the blandishments of the heavy lobby from that source. There was a spirit of compromise and consensus on both sides of the Committee—[Interruption.] I shall not name it until after the vote. Both sides of the Committee were prepared to give ground which they could have been expected to hold.
We visited Canada, and I think that everyone who went would agree that it probably would have been better if we had done that at the start, rather than halfway through our deliberations. As a result of that visit virtually everyone agreed that we should aim for a unit of the House as it exists in both the federal Parliament and also the provincial Parliament which we visited in Toronto.
Most of us who visited Canada also preferred the more liberal regime applied in Toronto as opposed to the rigid one in Ottawa. The suggestions in our report lie somewhere between the two points. I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that we would have preferred a more liberal regime in terms of rules of coverage, but we realised, once again, that if we were going to get the proposals through we would have to give some ground.
I say to those such as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the former Leader of the House, and others who criticised the report because it suggested showing merely head and shoulders that it is not that rigid. It contains the potential for a little experimentation. I believe that as the experiment continues common sense will prevail because the report does not

contain the total rigidity which some of the more hysterical leader writers have suggested. Apart from anything else, it is impossible to film nothing more than someone's head and shoulders because there is always something to the left, right, behind or below which will also come out.
Therefore, although we would prefer a more liberal regime, the one proposed is certainly acceptable to me for the purposes of the experiment and, I believe, it will develop according to simple common sense.
I was particularly interested to represent the Scottish dimension and that of the English regions and Wales, to ensure a balance of coverage. The Leader of the House will remember, I certainly well remember, the noise and clamour made from hon. Members on the Nationalist Bench because they were not given membership of the Select Committee. In future, the Nationalist Bench could perhaps be leased out to the public because it is certainly not used by the people who should be sitting on it. I can only assume that the reason for the total absence of the Scottish National party Members tonight is that they are rehearsing for after November, because they will also then be totally absent. I assume that there are no Scottish Tories present because they are rehearsing for after the next general election.
We were concerned to look after the Scottish dimension technically and editorially. For the purposes of the experiment, I would much prefer that the signal was transmitted by satellite so that regional stations around the country could pick up the clean feed and use it for regional and national purposes in Scotland and Wales, where programmes will clearly have a different emphasis from those of the south of England. In the report, we urge the broadcasting companies to do that. We urge them to send the signal around the country by satellite and I hope that our suggestion will be acted upon within the duration of the experiment. We did not, however, feel that we could instruct them to do that or that it should be written into the report, but the message is very clear.
I shall take up the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, North—and doubtless it will be taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—about the absolute necessity for a dedicated channel. There is nothing in the report to prevent the existence of a dedicated channel if a company wants to take the signal and show it around the country. The amendment before us is a wrecking amendment because the idea that the experiment should collapse because a few thousand people scattered around the country cannot receive the signal on their little dishes is farcical. The idea that it would be a con trick if 100 per cent. of the people watched the House of Commons under the terms of this report but a great advance for democracy if 99 per cent. watched under the terms of the report and 1 per cent. under the terms outlined by the hon. Member for Thanet, North is ludicrous.
This is a wrecking amendment. I am in favour of a dedicated channel, which will come, but it is totally irrelevent to this report and its spirit to insist that a dedicated channel should be included in it. Let us put it to the test: if any station or satellite company wants to include a dedicated channel, it can do so. Quite frankly, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Thanet, North that there should be 10 dedicated channels, one of the Chamber and nine of Committees, on offer, even The Sun would have difficulty giving away 100,000 dishes so that people could watch them.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman clearly misunderstood what I said. One satellite transponder will provide enough capacity to cover this Chamber and up to 10 Committees.

Mr. Wilson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and doubtless my hon. Friend the Member for Workington will elaborate on it.
I support the report in its entirety and will do so in the vote tonight. This is not the end, but the beginning, of a major democratic advance in this country—there is no doubt about that. I can understand why Conservative Members might vote against it, but I cannot for the life of me understand why any Opposition Members would vote against a report which allows the electors to see what is said and done in their name. I cannot understand how anyone who pays lip service to democracy can, in the last stages of the 20th century, deny the electorate the right to see what is said and done in their name. That is the bottom line of the report.
I am not interested in the party advantages that will come out of the experiment because no one can forecast them, and that is not the way in which this matter should be measured. It should be measured as a democratic advance and anyone who fears that is in trouble with his own beliefs and principles.
The proposals in the report, when acted upon, will expose fools, reward wisdom and rubbish morons. They might change the behaviour of the House, but nothing I have seen since I came here suggests that behaviour in the House of Commons is so perfect that it does not need a little bit of change. Let us have in all that is suggested in the report by the time of the Queen's Speech. I am sure that once the cameras are in, they will stay in. Tonight, we are witnessing an important democratic advance with which I am proud to be associated and I congratulate the Leader of the House on the way in which he has led it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again appeal for short contributions of five or six minutes from each hon. Member? That would enable me to call everyone who wants to speak.

Mr. Roger Sims: I wholeheartedly support televising the proceedings of the House for the reason given by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). The House of Commons is the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It may be a system that we sometimes take for granted, but perhaps events elsewhere in the world in the past two or three weeks will make us value it more.
If the Chamber is the heart of our parliamentary democracy, it is surely important that people should see what goes on in it. There is clearly a demand that they should. We all know how many requests we receive for people to get tickets to sit in the Strangers' Gallery. Every day a queue of people waits outside to come in. With television, all our constituents will have a chance to follow our proceedings.
I favour televising our proceedings, but they should stay as they are now. We should not change our procedures to accommodate television cameras. In that respect, I agree with the report of the Procedure Committee, on which I served. The House will recall that we agreed in principle to an experiment in February 1988

and the Select Committee was set up the following month. It has not produced its recommendations precipitately and there has been some criticism of the time it has taken. The Select Committee has gone into it in great detail and is to be congratulated on its thoroughness.
I have noted with interest the arguments in favour of a dedicated channel, which would be unedited, but I have no great enthusiasm for it—although I am not against the idea. Surely only a very small audience will want to watch continuous televising of the House. Most people will see what goes on here on news programmes and in programmes about Parliament. There is also the danger, with a dedicated channel, that word will get around that there is a sort of peak viewing time during which Members will jostle for position to make speeches, and that would certainly alter the character of our debates.
Of course, editing always takes place. We are bound to be worried about it, but the press and radio have always done it. We have often read reports in the newspapers which refer to every speech in a debate except the one that we made ourselves. We have often listened to "Today in Parliament" and heard about many speeches, after which the announcer informs us that three other Members also spoke, one of whom happens to be yours truly. Nevertheless, we have to live with editing.
I want to emphasise a point that others have already made about paragraph 59 and to express the hope that help will be given with televising for the deaf, who constitute a large minority of the population. There are in this country almost 4 million people who are hard of hearing and 50,000 who are born profoundly deaf. In recent years great advances have been made in the use of subtitles and sign language on television. Of course there will be difficulties about incorporting them into a television service, but they are not insuperable. I regret that the report merely expresses the hope that every effort will be made to meet the needs of the deaf. I want a stronger commitment. This is a wonderful opportunity to widen the world for deaf people and it should not be missed.
I also support the references to the televising of Standing and Select Committees. No doubt the two 15-minute Prime Minister's questions sessions will be fully televised each week, but they are not representative of Parliament. I should have liked some of my constituents to see the work of the Standing Committee on the Children Bill in recent weeks. In that Committee, on which I served, they would have seen Members of all parties working hard and well together to produce legislation on an important and sensitive area. It was Parliament at its best, and it is to be hoped that that is the sort of proceeding that the television cameras will cover—although I regret that, for most of the Committee's proceedings, not a soul was to be seen in the press seats.
As for the rules of coverage, paragraph 5 states:
We would welcome a degree of flexibility
in the experiment. In paragraph 37 a statement of objectives is given, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has referred:
The director should seek … to give a full, balanced, fair and accurate account of proceedings".
Has the Committee got it right to ensure that that will be done? Do its proposals incorporate the degree of flexibility to which it refers? We do not formally recognise that we have a public Gallery or that there is anyone in it; but we know that, except in the small hours, we are not alone. Surely the aim should be to allow the television viewer to


see what a person who is physically present would usually see. As my right hon. Friend said, that would not be exactly possible because the person in the Gallery can look around the Chamber, whereas the viewer will see only what the camera shows—but that is the whole point: we are discussing where the camera should be looking.
Because this is a public forum, we must recognise that there will be a temptation for people to demonstrate occasionally because they will get publicity by so doing. Television cameras will create an even greater temptation. The Committee rightly proposes restrictions, but it is also important that our constituents should be able to see what is going on here and, as far as possible, get the feel of the place and absorb the atmosphere in which debates take place.
In addition to what are described as restrictions in paragraph 38 there are specific guidelines in paragraph 39. Perhaps there is a subtle difference between them, but the directors would clearly be well advised to comply with the so-called guidelines.
Let us consider for a moment what the effect on this debate would be if it were being televised. According to the standard format, my head and shoulders would be shown as I was speaking—and nothing else. I do not profess to be the most photogenic Member of the House—

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Oh yes you are.

Mr. Sims: It is kind of my hon. Friend, of all people, to say so. However, even if I were, 10 minutes of head and shoulders of any one person would not provide the most riveting viewing and would not be the best way of assessing that person's contribution.
What about body language? In the course of making a speech most of us use our hands, as I am unselfconsciously doing from time to time. I sometimes wonder whether some of our colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), could be rendered mute by having their hands tied behind their backs. It is important that viewers should see whether Members are using notes and to what extent they are receiving the attention of the House. Are they addressing a packed House, hanging on their every word, or are just the Member and Mr. Speaker present? Anyone in the Gallery can see that, but the television viewer, under these restrictions, will not.
What about the effect of a Member's remarks? Even as I have been speaking some of my hon. Friends have been indicating assent, or otherwise, to my remarks, and that is all part of the debate. But under these restrictions the viewer will not be able to see that. I suggest that just as it is possible to allow a director complete freedom and the television cameras enough rope with which to hang themselves—so the experiment would fail—it is also possible to be so restrictive that the experiment will be judged to have failed. I am not sure that the Committee has got the balance entirely right between complete freedom and undue restriction. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that in Committee there were differences of view on that point. Therefore, it is right that the House should be given the opportunity to decide for itself on this point.
I hope that the House will support the report, but I invite it to omit the guidelines which confine shots to the head and shoulders of the Member who is speaking and preclude panning shots along the Benches.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Over 12 months ago, I and other hon. Members were invited by Granada Television to the mock Commons studio in Manchester to debate the televising of Parliament. During those proceedings, I spoke against edited excerpts and in favour of a dedicated channel. I returned to my constituency after the programme had been transmitted and was confronted by people who said that I was opposed to the televising of Parliament. In so far as my comments had been edited, that served to confirm my reservation about the whole question of the editing of parliamentary proceedings. That is why I support a dedicated channel.
I want what Nye Bevan described in his last great speech in 1959, the re-establishment of intelligent communication between the House of Commons and the electorate as a whole. I might add that I do not want to see trivia. I have tabled three amendments, the first of which would block all transmissions from the Chamber apart from those on a dedicated channel. That amendment was not selected. My second amendment would permit edited excerpts to run concurrently with a dedicated channel over an experimental period. The dedicated channel was considered by the Committee and supported. The Committee report says:
We believe that continuous coverage of the House's proceedings on a dedicated channel is a highly desirable objective in the public interest. The fact that we have not felt able to make any specific recommendations on the subject in this Report has nothing to do with the merits of the idea itself, which we strongly support; it stems from practical considerations related to the timing and nature of the experiment.
British Aerospace and British Satellite Broadcasting gave evidence to the Committee. However, the Committee rejected their case and the proposals that they put forward for a dedicated channel. The problem, especially in the case of the submission by British Aerospace, was that it was based on funding the scheme from terrestrial broadcasting income and the use by the consumer of a dish costing more than £500 and a dish for professional purposes that costs £5,000.
British Aerospace was never asked a most important question. It was never asked whether it could transmit on a dedicated channel proceedings of the House to be received on a £150 to £200 Amstrad dish which is currently sold by Comet and Dixon's and a host of other retailers across the United Kingdom for receiving Sky television. The price of that dish is likely to fall and its use could bypass completely the terrestrial broadcasters because programmes could be transmitted straight from Westminster and received in people's homes on a cheap dish.

Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend accept that even if his proposition went through the current viewing figures for Sky television are such that there are probably more people in the Strangers' Gallery watching this debate than would see it if his proposition were accepted?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I can assure my hon. Friend that more people watch Sky television than are in the


Gallery for the debate, and that dishes are being sold. My amendment would provide the kind of support that is needed.
As I say, the question that I have mentioned was never put to British Aerospace. I contacted the company today and it said:
British Aerospace Telecommunications confirms that it could provide satellite and uplink facilities for the televising of Parliament using the ECS … low power satellite (needing a 1·2–1·5 m receiving dish) for about £1 million pa. Based on a usage of 32 week year, 37·5 hour week"—
that is equivalent to our proceedings in their entirety apart from debates that take place after 10 pm—
which is equivalent to £833 per hour. Signals could be received on dishes costing about £500 for this service.
I am not putting forward that proposition. The letter continues:
If smaller receiving dishes like those used for ASTRA are the requirement then we could, in principle and subject to availability, equally well operate to that satellite from our earthstation here at Stevenage. However, the satellite transponder charges for that space segment"—
which is four times the power of the transponder that I referred to—
are much greater and the BAe Telecommunications inclusive price for the same number of hours would be about £4m pa. This is equivalent to £3,330 per hour. It is understood that receivers from ASTRA are expected to cost less than £200 and many predict that within 12 months the price could fall to about £100.
Some people would argue that my proposition would delay implementation of the report. I went back to British Aerospace for another letter which I received today. It says:
BAe Telecommunications confirms that it has reserved capacity on the European Communications Satellite for at least the following three years and therefore could guarantee coverage of Parliamentary proceedings from the October date which you identified in our telephone conversation.
I would also comment that the figures contained in our earlier letter from David Gregory"—
I understand that Mr. Gregory is here for the debate—
referring to prices and availability for the use of the Astra Satellite"—
that is the Sky television £150 dish—
were based on telephone conversations of today's date.
I then asked for a further qualification and this also arrived today. It says:
Further to Mr. Gregory's letter to you, I can confirm that BAeTeI has both the necessary ground transmission equipment and the capacity reserved on Eutelsat satellites for the next three years and as such can certainly transmit parliamentary proceedings from October this year. We can also confirm from a telephone conversation today that adequate capacity is also available on the Astra satellite for a similar period.
I read that into the record to show that British Aerospace can provide the facility from October this year if Parliament seeks to resolve the matter in that way.

Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but I will not. I have already given way to my hon. Friend once, and it is now nearly 9 o'clock. I have an obligation to others who want to speak after me.
The examination of British Aerospace's option was based on the reaction of the broadcasters, who were fearful of the expenditure implications. They never considered direct broadcasting on cheap dishes running concurrently with the Committee's principal proposals. In other words,

they did not consider direct broadcasting dishes. They relied on discussion about terrestrial broadcasting being part of the process.
I shall deal now with the cost. We have two options —£1 million for a £500 dish or £4 million for £150 reduced-in-price Amstrad dishes, plus £200,000 for a sending earthstation near Westminster. There are four options for funding that. First, there is public subscription, which some hon. Members will reject. Secondly, there is the possibility of advertising, which other hon. Members will reject. Thirdly, we have specialist consumers, a number of whom were identified by British Aerospace in a memorandum to the Committee, which said:
there is a market throughout the UK for information on the deliberations of Government in the form of continuous sound, television and text by businesses, local press, educational establishments and private citizens. The second group of users is important as a way of monitoring publicly the editorial decisions of the first.
We can also offer a service of electronic Hansard, and most town halls would want transmission and would pay for it. The public library system could equally subscribe, and I am also told that it is possible that the satellite companies, during this experimental period, might offer a concessionary tariff, if only with a view to getting the business long term.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but it is 9 o'clock and I have given way once. Other people wish to speak in the debate.
At the end of the experimental period, we could either throw out the lot—something that some want to do—or we could thrown out either the dedicated channel or what I call edited excerpt television. If we were to throw out the second, should we proceed in the way that I suggest, the effect would be to increase the number of satellite dish sales. I am not saying that that is necessarily a matter that Parliament should take into account, but it would be a factor.
The fourth and final route that we may go down into the future is that of fibre optics. Along with others, British Telecom is advocating the principle of a fibre-optic network throughout the United Kingdom, on telephone lines. The cables will be capable of transmitting a television picture. In the longer term, those who do not take this service on a dish could take it on a fibre-optic cable.

Sir Anthony Grant: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, and I shall refer to that later. However, first I endorse what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said about the work of the Committee, which was one of the most pleasant and happy Select Committees on which I have served. The work was rather harder and took rather longer than I had anticipated. I pay tribute, as he did, to the remarkable leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to the amiability and good humour of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the shadow Leader of the House, who also contributed to the work of the Committee. We were a diverse group, politically and in our views, and our discussions were vigorous but never rancorous.
Nothing that I have heard or seen since then has relieved the anxieties that I had when I voted in February 1988 against televising the House. I still retain anxieties about several points. The prime one, and the reason why I served on the Committee, concerns the rights of Back Benchers, which I wish to ensure are not further eroded. Every time we have had a so-called improvement in communications, or even in procedure, in Parliament, it has served to enhance the status and power of the Front Bench, no matter which party is in power. By definition, it has tended to diminish the influence of Back-Bench Members. There is a danger that television will accentuate this.
I put that point to a former Speaker and the present Speaker of the Canadian Parliament and they confirmed that such an outcome was a danger and had, to some extent, happened in the Canadian Parliament. Although the procedure there is different, Governments of all parties should be restrained, so far as possible, from hogging the Floor. The Select Committee on Procedure, which is well chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), should apply its mind to the problem, as no doubt it will in the near future.
I stress the importance of media people attending to regional coverage, which will he the only way that Back Benchers will be able to circumvent the domination of Front-Bench spokesmen. That is tremendously important if Back Benchers are not to disappear into the background in the presence of the grandees of the Front Benches.
My second concern is the quality of debate. We all know that apart from cross-party debates such as this or debates about sex, which are always very exciting, debate has been moving inexorably away from the Chamber. I fear that television will accelerate that movement. We shall, as I saw in the Canadian Parliament, cease to address each other and, increasingly, speak to the public outside, rather like party political broadcasts or horrible things like that. That was the experience in Canada, and unless we are careful the Chamber could ultimately become little more than show business, in which case we may as well hand over the presentation of Parliament straight away to actors and comedians and get on with the real discussion elsewhere. However, that is not why Parliament was formed and developed for many centuries.
Some hon. Members have expressed their concern about misbehaviour, but I feel that that worry has been exaggerated. Parliaments come and go, but exhibitionists will always be with us. Nevertheless, we shall have to watch that carefully. I do not believe that hon. Members will become much worse, but it is an illusion to suppose that suddenly their behaviour will be much better. In the sporting world, it was always said, "When the television cameras are looking on no one will be able to misbehave." The same argument has been advanced for Parliament. In truth, far from having curbed misconduct in sport, television has accentuated it. All the tomfoolery of running on to the pitch seems to be a feature of our modern sporting fields now that the cameras are on them.
I entirely understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), whom I greatly respect. If everyone were as gentlemanly as my hon. Friend, there would be no need for any rules or laws, but they are not, either in this place or in the reporting and journalism world. My answer to my hon. Friend is that, yes, we hope to be able to liberalise and have wider coverage than we have suggested in the report, but I

always believe that it is far better to start tough and then see whether one can relax. It usually proves impossible to do it the other way round. It does not matter whether one is captaining a team or commanding a regiment, one should start tough and relax later.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in Canada the rules that started tough have remained so for more than a decade?

Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Gentleman is right about the federal Parliament, but that does not apply in the provincial Parliaments. I was not particularly impressed by that, but I hope that we can learn from Canada's experience and that in due course we will move more in the direction of the Toronto legislature than the federal Parliament in Ottawa.
I support the Committee's report in broad principle. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, it is a package. Predictably, it has been criticised by television people, who have a vested interest, and we must sustain their displeasure with fortitude. They are mostly intelligent and responsible people, and I pay tribute to them for the dedicated and interesting way in which they gave evidence to the Committee.
There was a time when it was said that Parliament was dominated by lawyers, but that no longer applies. Nowadays it tends to be dominated by journalists and media folk, and it is equally undesirable. It is essential, and the wish of an overwhelming number of Members, to keep control of the experiment ourselves and to ensure that the cameras show a broader view of Parliament than just the Chamber and the pantomime of Prime Minister's questions twice a week, which is so beloved of the BBC.
I agree with the hon. Member for Workington in his proposals for a dedicated channel, a gavel-to-gavel electronic Hansard or whatever it is. I should have liked such a system for radio. Many hon. Members who fear, as I do, the dangers of misleading or mischievous editing or selection in the hands of unaccountable people should support the amendment if, as the hon. Gentleman persuades me, it is a practical proposition.
The hon. Member for Workington need not worry about being ragged by his hon. Friends about fewer people in the Strangers' Gallery watching the proceedings. Not many people read Hansard, but it is available to them. That is the key point. I shall support the amendment. If it is lost, I shall support the report as a workmanlike and reasonable compromise in all the circumstances. I hope that we will not lose sight of the idea of a dedicated channel, which is the way forward.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again appeal for five-minute speeches, which will enable me to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) may like to categorise me as a journalist and media person, but in this matter I speak as a Member of the House of Commons who is concerned about the importance of this institution and this Chamber. It seems to me, as a Member of the House who is concerned with its interests, that the House is in danger of becoming an irrelevant, unimportant


backwater unless we communicate on television with the people who now rely on television for news and information on current affairs.
Our role is not to control the Executive—we can do that only if it is afraid that we can throw it out. That function has passed from here to the people. Our role is not even to influence each other. In this Chamber we are developing and testing the arguments and putting to the people the cases for and against what the Government are doing as the raw materials on which, at the end of four or five years, they will decide whether to keep or throw the Government out. Our essential job is public education—putting the arguments before the people. We are, therefore, irrelevant and the job is incompetently done unless we reach the people through that medium. That is the essential argument for televising Parliament.
That has always been the case, and it is the case now. It is not so much that the people want Parliament televised, although 60 per cent. do, and it is not so much that they have a right to it, although they do. It is that we cannot do our job without televising Parliament.
In that light, I am not entirely happy with the Committee's report. It took far too long for the report to be produced—18 months was far too long. The report is too cautious because it is too deferential to our egos, susceptibilities and tendernesses and it attaches too little importance to the public's wishes. It is irrelevant, however, to go into that now, because the report has been agreed. Its recommendations will be developed in the light of experience. Indeed, because of the technical problems of covering the most difficult studio in the world and because of the quick interchange of debate, the recommendations will probably have to change anyway.
In any case, if the report had recommended that the speech of every Member should be prefaced by a herald from the royal chorus of trumpeters in the Gallery, that little cherubim and seraphim should be superimposed on the picture round every Member's head and that sound and applause should be dubbed in, I would have accepted that, too, because it is so important to get across the principle that the proceedings of this institution should be covered by the television cameras. If it gets the cameras in, I would accept it. That is the basis on which I accept the report.
The opposition to the report and to televising is based only on fear—fear of ourselves, of the medium and of the public outside. It is interesting that opponents of televising have moved their ground. They no longer oppose it in principle but are now trying to use other arguments, saying that we should have televising only if there is a dedicated channel and that it should be done liberally. Opposition to the principle is now concealed by other motives.
On amendment (c), I must say that I am an enthusiatic and strong supporter of a dedicated television channel, covering Parliament full time. That is essential. Indeed, I would go further and say that it is essential in this country to have a channel such as C-SPAN in the United States, which carries public affairs generally, so that the political nation can talk to the political nation. Such a channel would cover not only Parliament—because we are no longer the only forum for discussion—but the parties, the speeches, the press conferences, the pressure groups and

the university seminars. I should like to see all that on television and it could be covered via satellite and via cable.
However, it is wrong to make a dedicated channel a sine qua non, which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done, in effect. It is wrong to say that we will not have the report unless we have full-time, dedicated coverage. Such coverage will come. Getting Parliament on television will strengthen the case for it. People will want to put political issues in context and there is a demand for full-time coverage, which will be voiced only when Parliament is shown on the other terrestrial channels. Yet it is wrong to make a dedicated channel a condition of the coverage.
The report is too cautious and too late. We are 10 years behind most advanced countries, five years behind the other place, which has benefited enormously from coverage on television, and one year behind any reasonable timetable in this place. However, with all its problems, with all its reservations and with all its cautiousness, the report enshrines the vital principle of bringing to the people, through the medium on which they rely for their news and information about current affairs, what is being done by their representatives in their name and on the issues that affect their lives. That is the principle which we must espouse.
As hon. Member for Great Grimsby, where people cannot drop in and out of the Chamber, even with the difficulties that obtain for people here, I believe that we need to bring Parliament to everyone throughout the country. This is an historic opportunity and an historic moment for the House. Let us seize that opportunity.

Sir John Stokes: I have spoken more on this subject than on any other subject I can remember. I am not a member of the communications industry, but just an ordinary Englishman. We must be careful not to think that we all spend all day every day looking at that awful box. It is very harmful to the nation, its manners and its morals. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that the televising of our proceedings would change our procedures. That means, I suppose, that Question Time would become everyone else's high tea time. I do not want that to happen. I want our procedures to remain as they are. I want the House to remain what it is because I love this place. It has a special character which is quite unlike that of all the other places that have been televised, which are so terribly boring that nobody watches them. This place is special and precious and we must safeguard it.
I have always felt that, in general, the coming of the television industry has been thoroughly harmful rather than beneficial to the nation. When television covers current affairs, it tends to distort, to trivialise and to sensationalise. That is why I oppose the coming of television to this House and why I find it hard to accept the report, good as it no doubt is and hard as the Committee worked. The main danger is that television is a branch of the showbiz industry and it is not suited to the quite different business that we conduct here. That is why we must have every possible safeguard built into the experiment.
I noted that the clever Mr. Bernard Levin wrote a particularly stupid article in The Times in which he implied


that by controlling the broadcasting we were trying to make ourselves look like plaster saints. We are not. We are trying to stop the television editors and producers making us look like a non-stop variety show.
We must never forget that the public have no interest in whether the House is televised. In my 19 years here, representing about 80,000 of the best people in England, not one has ever written to me saying, "You must televise your proceedings." All the demand for televising that has been talked about is absolute rubbish. Our constituents want to be able to send good men here, men whom they can trust. They will be all right then. Let us remember that in the greatest days of this country, not only was there no television but there was no reporting, and never has this country been better governed.
However, now we are told that we can learn some lessons from the televising of the proceedings in the other place, which I still so greatly admire, despite the new life peers. Television in the other place, originally much heralded, was initially broadcast daily, first at a reasonable hour, then at a late hour. Now the proceedings are broadcast only weekly. Then it will be monthly and eventually it will vanish altogether. Let us remember also that their Lordships have no constituents and that they are not subjected to the lobbying to which we are subjected.
We are in danger of making ourselves self-important and ridiculous. Hon. Members may think that the debate will be the talk of the pubs. Well, go to the pub tomorrow— not you, Mr. Speaker—and you will not hear the subject mentioned. It is of interest only to people in the media, not to most ordinary people, who are much more interested in cricket scores and good things like that. We must have a sense of proportion. Surely the Labour party, which purports to represent the ordinary man, should hold such views just as much as the Tory party. I am surprised that it does not.
I fear that the televising of our proceedings would utterly ruin the character of this great and famous Chamber, the most famous debating chamber in the world. I very much hope that this nonsense is thrown out.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have some sympathy with some of the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), but the House has taken a decision and unless people disagree with that decision—their moral right to do so is questionable—we shall have an experiment. Therefore, it should be as good as we can make it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, and the many other hon. Members who feel concern about this, that the perception of our constituents about the job of a Member of Parliament is that we come into the Chamber, sit in serried ranks and speak or not speak as the case may be. We all know that the job of Parliament and of parliamentarians is about much more than either being in here or in Committee, but we cannot get that across to our constituents. Sound radio tended to reinforce that wrong perception. Many people are concerned that that perception will be still more heightened by the way in which edited excerpts and highlights, emphasising the Front Benches, will be used during television news programmes and I believe that that is probably what will happen. The danger of that is

comparable to hearing a Beethoven symphony played on the timpani and the trumpet. We must do something in the experiment to counteract that.
Some people have said that "Today in Parliament" is a good programme and it is perhaps the best of the BBC's efforts. However, I wrote to the editors of the programme many years ago when I first became a Member of the House and asked why they did not mention the Adjournment debates, saying, "Surely people are interested in knowing that this cottage hospital or that bypass has been discussed." I said that the debate need not be mentioned in detail but that the fact that an hon. Member had raised a matter should be referred to. The editors said, "No, it will be of concern to only a small number of people. That is not news."
What we do here may not he newsworthy but it is important. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said, this is the biggest television studio in the world, it will be used by the media as a new source of raw material. This place is much more important than that. It should not be seen simply as a new source of visual news material. This place is the centre of the democratic operations of our nation and democracy today is on the march. We know that a great deal of what we do here today was developed in the 1680s and 1690s and that many things happened across the Channel and in North America in the 1780s and the 1790s.
We see events from all around the world on television. We see and hear about what is happening to the democratic process in Poland, Moscow and in Tiananmen square. Poland and perhaps even South Africa may be branching out towards democracy. We are not talking about just another show or more raw material For the broadcasters. We are talking about something that should be put in its worldwide context. We are the guardians of a procedure that I believe to be unique.
On Friday 9 June The Independent carried a translation of what one young man had written on the hoardings in Tiananmen square:
So we appeal to the Chinese: Get rid of the tradition of pure ideology-making, of sloganising, of objectifying. These are empty democracy. They must start the process of actual operation, of practical procedures, of turning a democracy movement centred on the enlightenment of thought into that of an actual operation. They must start with the details.
The procedures of the House are practical examples of democracy in action. Our democracy may not be perfect, but at least it is in operation and, to some extent, we are pioneers. Anything that could possibly damage our proceedings must be viewed with concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is right that, unless the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is accepted, it will be the producers and editors who press the button and choose what the public see. It will be the executives who choose the producers, the directors of television firms who choose the executives and those who own the firms who choose the directors.
I believe that the condition of having a dedicated channel, if that is possible, as I understand it, is an important one. It would allow people who wanted to see part of an Adjournment debate to do so. A debate could be relayed to a town hall, for example. It would allow people to see their Parliament. Tonight, we are in a position to decide that all the people should be able to see


all the time all that is said and done in their name in their Parliament. That would be a very important democratic safeguard.
I hope that my hon. Friend's amendment will be accepted, because there can hardly be a case against it. But even if it is not, I hope that the Committee will proceed along similar lines. Unless it does, the perception of this place and the way in which it works—the democratic methods that we have developed—may be placed in jeopardy. I urge the House to support my hon. Friend's amendment and the proceedings of the House as we know them and to make them open to the whole public all the time.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I support the report and I shall vote for the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am delighted to note that, although so many hon. Members are busy with European elections and by-elections and even though it is Monday, we have quite a good turnout. I hope that we shall make progress tonight. I think that we shall be making history tonight and we shall remember that with pleasure in the years to come.
Let me offer a word of praise for the Committee's efforts. The press coverage of the Committee's report was not good preparation for this debate. Many of the leader writers in national newspapers hooted with laughter and cast derision on what it said. As the Opposition Front Bench spokesman ruefully admitted, the press mainly poked fun at the Opposition, and called them
denizens of London's clubland queruling lest some unauthorised person should blow his nose in the billiards room.
That strikes me as a pretty fair description of one or two Opposition Members.
The Committee's report, however, was not like the representations of it in the press. Some of it could only have been written by a Committee. I read with amusement paragraph 21 which says:
In addition to our proposals for House representation on the board of House of Commons Broadcasting Unit Ltd., we recommend the appointment of an Officer of the House to act as the Supervisor of Broadcasting. The Supervisor should report to a monitoring Select Committee.
That could only have been written by a Committee; what busy bees they are going to be. That sort of tone is a bit of a pity and it demonstrates some of the compromises that the Committee had to reach.
I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this is an experiment. We should go along with it and make our decision when it is over. I do not accept the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I listened carefully to his description of the technical possibilities, but he was beginning to put me off. He suggested that we might have access to 10 Select Committees simultaneously. That does not attract me, as I have had considerable difficulties with one Select Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I demur a little at the way that he put his point.
In general, I am impressed. It is clear that a great deal of work has gone into the report. I listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said about the proposal to restrict the view to head

and shoulders, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). I think it a little unfortunate to dub that as merely shampoo politics. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has left the Chamber—probably for a television interview—because if such shampoo politics were to encourage him to have a haircut, that might be an advantage. What is the problem? Why do right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House feel so concerned? I look at the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and bear in mind that on television we all look about a stone heavier, as he well knows. I wonder whether he is worried that constituents might be a little concerned about ample girths or that on some occasions hon. Members are not dressed as sartorially as they might want. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt)—who served on the Committee—and other right hon. and hon. Members, especially on the Conservative Benches, should be perfectly satisfied with the notion that they might be photographed from the neck down as well as from the neck up. I note that the real concern of the Committee is that it does not want close-ups, which I do not understand, but it is an experiment and we should proceed with it.
I have listened carefully to the debate and I am glad to have this opportunity to participate in it. I gained a slight impression from the Committee's report and from many Opposition Members that the House produces something —a debate, procedure or an activity—and that someone wants to interfere with it and take it from us. Paragraph 11(i) refers to consumers being the broadcasting companies whereas paragraph 37 refers to viewers. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House implied that the broadcasters are the producers and that the House, in purchasing a sort of electronic Hansard, will be the customer. Both those approaches are fundamentally flawed because they show no awareness of the fact that the consumers are the viewers, and that the viewers are the voters. They put us here and they are puzzled why we keep them out. They do not understand what we are debating tonight—53 years after the first television broadcast in Britain; they cannot understand why we are so afeared of it.
That point was put extremely well by Robert Harris in a recent article in The Sunday Times. He said:
What kind of timid and enfeebled nation have we become that we cannot be allowed to see our own legislature at work in all its noise and colour, its inefficiencies and longueurs?.… who exactly is protecting whom. Nobody seriously believes that it is the electorate which has to be shielded from the unsavoury sight of the Commons"—
even the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in full spate.
Quite the reverse. It is the Commons which has decided that it wants protection from the prying eyes of the public. Thus is democracy … stood on its head.
All it leads to is the impression outside this place that we have something to hide—not that broadcasters or viewers cannot be trusted, but that we flinch at public reaction. That is nonsense.

Mr. Richard Tracey: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I have been asked to be brief, and I shall honour that.
I shall vote for my right hon. Friend's motion because I recognise the work that has been done and because the


report makes sensible suggestions. Most of all, I will vote for the report because it will get the cameras in here, and it is about time. The people will then judge, and whichever way they judge, I will be content.

Mr. Tony Banks: If for no other reason, I compliment the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on her choice of colours this evening; they will look very good on television. The thought of her coming at the public on 10 different channels makes even the strongest hon. Member baulk.
I owe the Leader of the House an apology. I am prepared to give him that apology this evening. The advent of the report has taken away my favourite business question. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was dragging his feet. I thought that the report was rather like the holy grail—everyone had heard of it, but no one knew where it was. At least the report is here, but I am disappointed that it is timid. There is not the scope that I would have expected the Select Committee to come up with. I do not like the commercialism in it—the idea of setting up a limited company. I know that that might be paying lip service to the economic philosophy of the present Government, and of the Prime Minister in particular, but I do not think that it suits the House of Commons. It could even be the thin end of the sponsorship wedge. Before long, we will end up as the John Player Parliament, with Mr. Speaker's wig being sponsored by Vidal Sassoon and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) being sponsored by Harrods' food hall. I do not think that we want that.
I will support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), although I suspect his motives. I know how he feels about broadcasting and the televising of Parliament. A dedicated channel is wanted. It will answer all our doubts and fears. It would mean that there would be no intermediary and no filter. I do not consider that we have been well served by the Press Gallery. I would like to see the director being able to aim the cameras towards the Press Gallery so that members of the public could see just how few members of the press are here, yet they manage to write so much, and so much that is incorrect, about what we say.
I do not know why The Sun bothers to have someone in the Parliamentary Lobby. For the life of me, if The Sun can have someone in the Parliamentary Lobby, so should the Exchange and Mart, Penthouse and, quite frankly, Beano and Dandy as well. I do not want people of that sort interposing between what goes on here and the public. That is why a dedicated channel is absolutely crucial. We should not be looking around for someone to pay for it. We should do it in the interests of democracy. We should say that democracy is beyond price in the market place and that, therefore, Parliament is prepared to put up the necessary funds.
In conclusion, I ask the Leader of the House one question. If the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is passed, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the House to support the amended substantive motion? Quite frankly, if I thought that, by supporting my hon. Friend's amendment, we were likely to lose even that which we have, clearly I will opt for the

smaller and look later for the larger, extended, dedicated channel which I know would find support on both sides of the House.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When my right hon. Friend used the phrase "the important thing is", referring to Committees, I hoped that he was going to say, "The important thing is that the experiment being conducted should not interfere with the work of the Select Committee." I have forgotten what it was that he said was important, but it was not the most important thing of the lot. Quite a number of hon. Members have said that the epicentre of effective action has moved out of the Chamber. That is certainly so. It is the Select Commit tees which, by being able to focus sustained questioning on witnesses, are able to get information in a way that the one question only on the Floor of the House at Question Time never can.
If questioning is to be focused and sustained in Select Committee, it is absolutely essential that every member of the Committee has a full view of the witnesses who are being examined and that the lighting is not such as to impede the Committee in its work. We could very easily achieve a situation where we look like the Toton Macoute in Haiti, where more and more Members are wearing dark glasses. Although those who recommended televising Parliament before the crucial vote never stopped assuring us that the cameras today needed no additional lighting to what we already have, having got the vote, they then assure us that there is no truth in that whatever and that greatly increased levels of lighting are needed. That, I think, was a bit of sleight of hand that the House did not deserve.
I am particularly concerned about the effect of these proposals on Select Committees, even more than the effect on the Chamber. The important thing is that the advent of television will put the public in the position that they would have been if they could have been in the Gallery or in a Select Committee meeting—it should not alter what they are seeing. That is the criterion by which we should judge the success or failure of this experiment.
The lighting must be controlled. The cameras in Select Committee must not interfere with the process of examining witnesses. If they do, the Chairman of the Select Committee must have power to order them to cease doing whatever they are doing that is breaking the focus and the sustained effect of the questioning.
I shall support the amendment of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), because I think it is a very valuable thing indeed that, just as nobody censors what those in the Gallery see and nobody censors what is seen in public sittings of Select Committees, the programme going out continuously will not be chopped about to the convenience of somebody other than the viewers.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief because I know that a couple of other hon. Members want to speak. Although I welcome the report and I voted for the advent of televising the House, I must say that the experiment is far too closely controlled. It is as though the


Committee was very much afraid of the media rather than it being composed of people who have grown increasingly used to working with them.
The reality is that the Chamber has been withering. The attendance tonight is not too bad, but for the majority of the time a dozen hon. Members is about the maximum present. Indeed, in spite of big occasions such as the Budget, the biggest attendance that I can recall since 1987 has not been for a debate on an external crisis, on events in other countries, or on the economic crisis, but it was when the House was discussing the discipline to be handed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). Television cameras would help to replace such a discussion with more important issues, would gain maximum attendance in the Chamber and would encourage a reversal in the decline of attendance in what should be the centre piece of Parliament.
One does not deny the importance of Select Committees and the cross-examination of witnesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that the freemasons have been giving evidence this afternoon, which is a matter of great import, and that that would, no doubt, have been covered by television. The fact is, however, that the Chamber is one of the most important places in the building, where Ministers are called to account. If this place is packed, it is more forbidding for Ministers. They have to get the nuts and bolts of their cases much more ordered in their minds before they come here. As many hon. Members have said, the advent of television will, of course, increase the democratic relationship with people outside. It will also make Ministers that bit more fearful of this place, which will be all to the good.
I have strong reservations about the idea of a dedicated channel. It seems to be a recipe for undermining the proposals and not for adding to them. I do not want Parliament to be put into an electronic ghetto to be seen by everyone for about five minutes in their lives, then switched off to become a memory. If we have confidence in ourselves and confidence in this place as the forum for the exchange of views and ideas we should have the confidence to put ourselves on a par with the rest of the other events reported by the media electronically on television.
We grumble about the press and about the way in which it reports us because it does not report the words of the particular individual. None the less, the press has access to the House. There was opposition to the access of Hansard and opposition to the access of radio—I can recall the debates and anxieties then and I can recall the packed House for Welsh Question Time on the first day that radio was introduced to the House. Radio has taken its place in our proceedings and television will play its part.
I shall vote for the report because I see it as the beginning of television making a proper, adequate report of this debating Chamber, which should be the important focus of attention in the nation's affairs.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I concur with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). This issue is one of commonality across the party lines and I welcome that as this is a matter peculiar to the House itself.
Although the Committee has come in for some fair criticism and comment this evening, I believe that it has had a difficult but important task in trying to read the will of the House as expressed in February 1988. It has tried to draw a line between those who wanted no television and those who wanted the most liberal coverage of the House and in doing so it has struck the right balance. Although the report may not have pleased everyone, the experiment is worth a try and it should be seen as an experiment.
Before we vote tonight we should recall the principles which have been enunciated by a number of hon. Members tonight and which led the House to support the motion in February 1988. Those principles were repeated by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. Televising the Chamber will have a demonstrable impact on the influence of Parliament over the Executive. To some extent that influence has slipped since the introduction of Select Committees, welcome as they are, in 1979. The power and influence of Government have grown. Why should we exercise a self-denying ordinance? Is it not somewhat patronising for us to say that politics should be left to us alone and that people outside are not interested? We seek their mandate and their support. We say that we should be accountable to the people, but we say that they should not be allowed to see what we do in this place.
There is a latent, pent-up demand—more so than some hon. Members have assessed—for televising the proceedings of the House. As has already been said, this matter should not be seen from the point of view of what the broadcasters wants to deliver as they may look at things in terms of the national numbers who watch their programmes. For the people of each region there are issues of great importance and those people should be entitled, not only to read and listen to the proceedings of the House, but to see and assess for themselves the mood of this place about decisions that affect their regions.
The guidelines that have been established and the rules of coverage proposed will enable a fair, true and balanced representation of this House to be shown. In Committee we sought to take account of the misgivings expressed in the numerous representations from hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as Chairman of the Committee. We have set up the structure for the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit and have proposed a director of broadcasting in this House to allay some of the worst fears expressed.
If the rules prove to be too restrictive, the monitoring facility will allow those rules to be changed. It is interesting that, from this debate, it is clear that it is thought that the rules might be too restrictive and that the Committee should have been inclined to be more liberal, but those rules can be suitably amended.
The Committee gave proper emphasis to the importance of Select Committee work. Those Committees and the Standing Committees occupy much of the time of hon. Members, they are part of the proceedings of the House and they undertake important work. It is right and proper that coverage by the media and television should cover them as well.
The amendments which have been chosen by you, Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), should not commend themselves to the House. The first is essentially


a wrecking amendment and the latter—[Interruption] The latter amendment leaves the rules of coverage too wide to satisfy the House at this time.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: rose—

Mr. Nelson: I shall not give way at this time, but I will explain why the first is a wrecking amendment. We are concerned with an experiment and the House was concerned that the Select Committee should bring forward recommendations for its implementation. Not unreasonably, it has tried to impose it by the autumn of this year.
Whatever British Aerospace or the hon. Member for Workington may say about the provision of a dedicated channel, which I would support in the longer term were we to have permanent arrangements, it is not a practical arrangement for the short term. If it were made a condition of the package of the main motion it might result in the whole experiment being dropped. It should be seen for what it is: a wrecking amendment, which should be dismissed by the House.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will take further the step which it embarked on in February 1988. A historic step can be taken tonight and I hope that the House will not turn back from it.

Mr. Wakeham: This has been an interesting and well-informed debate, with contributions from members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members, representing a wide range of views. If I have taken one message from the debate, it is that hon. Members from both sides of the argument feel that the time has come for decisions.
The House is not being invited tonight to reopen the principle of televising the House. That argument was settled, for the time being, last February. We are concerned with the machinery for implementing the experiment. The report ensures that the House will have the chance to vote for or against the permanent televising at about this time next year. That is a point which I make to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes)—and I have a shrewd suspicion about the way in which he will vote.
I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not attempt to respond to all the points made by hon. Members. There are a number of specific points and questions with which I shall seek to deal. I am grateful for the kind things said about me in various parts of the Chamber, particularly the comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I spend most of my time trying to put him right on one thing or another, but it was a great pleasure to work with him in Committee, as it was with the other Committee members, and the advisers and Clerks who served us extremely well. I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that we learnt a lot from the witnesses who substantially improved our knowledge of the subject.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) admonished us for attaching too much weight and seriousness to the proceedings of the House. He told us that we were theatre. I thank him for his entertaining contribution.
I feel like saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that I feel a bit like the Irishman and would not necessarily have started from

here. I was against the experiment in the first place, and voted and spoke against it. I certainly did not persuade anybody to vote for it on the basis that the lighting would be one thing or another. The concerns which he expressed were directly expressed in paragraph 85 of our report, which stated that if any difficulties became evident during the experiment they could be looked at. We had a test of the lighting and were reasonably satisfied with the results, although, again, the experiment may offer us scope for changes.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) focused primarily on the iniquities, as he and his hon. Friends see it, of our electoral system, and made two points. He drew attention to what he called the Scottish dimension of the experiment. The Committee felt strongly that the Scottish affairs and concerns of other parts of the United Kingdom should be properly reflected, and we obtained assurances from the broadcasters on that point. The broadcasters specifically expressed interest in televising the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about monitoring the broadcast output. We are considering proposals for a comprehensive monitoring exercise during the experiment, which would include political balance and regional coverage among the items to be analysed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) all accused the Committee of being too timid, but for different reasons. Being accused of being reluctant and slow by those hon. Members and by my hon. Friend from different viewpoints convinces me that we have probably not got it too far wrong.
Before I finish, I want to say a word about the two amendments that have been selected. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) holds out the enticing prospect of a dedicated channel providing continuous coverage of our proceedings. I know that that proposition will hold appeal for many Members. I for one would very much like to have a dedicated channel, but I ask the House carefully to examine what the amendment means. If it were passed, the experiment could not take place unless a dedicated channel was established. The report makes it quite clear that, as no public money is available for this purpose, the idea of a dedicated channel can be realised only as a result of commercial decisions by the broadcasters. That is the present position; I am not talking about a dedicated channel at some time in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) argued his case skilfully, as did the hon. Member for Workington, and gave the House figures which purported to show that a dedicated channel was financially viable. My hon. Friend's and the hon. Gentlemen's enthusiasm is not matched at present by the broadcasters. Even they would agree that it would be quite wrong for the House to seek to second guess their judgement—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the right hon. Gentleman had heard me move my amendment, he would realise that it did not relate to terrestrial broadcasters: it is to do with a direct transmission system.

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that, but if the experiment cannot take place unless we have a dedicated channel some


broadcasters—commercial broadcasters, not necessarily existing ones—must finance it. If any broadcaster says that he wants to broadcast a satellite programme starting in October, I for one would be perfectly happy for him to do so. I am not stopping anyone doing so; anyone who wishes to apply can do so. I am suggesting that, if no one applies, that is not a case for not going ahead with the experiment.
Despite every opportunity, neither British Aerospace nor British Satellite Broadcasting came forward to us, or more importantly to the broadcasters, with a fully costed and worked-out formal position. To go broke on the basis of three letters to the hon. Member for Workington seems to me highly risky, to say the least. If the House passes the hon. Gentleman's amendment, it will in effect throw the whole experiment back into the melting pot of uncertainty and, possibly, of protracted delay. I therefore recommend that the House votes against amendment (c), although it is for individual right hon. and hon. Members to make up their own minds. [Interruption.] To answer the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who asked me whether I would vote for the main Question if the amendment were passed, I still would. That does not mean that it would not involve risks.
The other amendment that the House must decide upon is that moved in a characteristically thoughtful way by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), relating to the rules of coverage. Here the argument is simple. The Committee has recommended a framework of rules which strikes a balance between the strict Canadian model and the somewhat relaxed regime which applies in the other place. My hon. Friend is proposing significantly to relax the rules proposed by the Committee in a way that I do not think would lead to the sort of coverage of our proceedings that most hon. Members would want.
There is a further practical point. It is very much wiser to start as the Committee proposes with a fairly strict set of rules and the prospect of some relaxation as the experiment develops. If a convincing case can be made in the light of experience, that is well and good. I do not think that it would be quite so easy in practice to tighten up the rules once the experiment has begun. Therefore, I advise the House not to accept amendment (n).
It is now 16 months since the House voted in favour of an experiment in televising our proceedings. The report offers a sensible, balanced and practical way to implement the will of the House, and I recommend it to the House as it stands.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [9 June], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion and of the amendments thereto which had been selected by him.

Amendment proposed: (c), at end add
'provided that televised proceedings of the House are broadcast on a dedicated channel, unedited, from the start of the sitting to the rising of the House.'.—[Mr. Campbell-Savours.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 274.

Division No. 232]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ashby, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkinson, David
Bidwell, Sydney





Blackburn, Dr John G.
Kirkhope, Timothy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Knapman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lawrence, Ivan


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Butler, Chris
Lord, Michael


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mans, Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Marlow, Tony


Carttiss, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Moate, Roger


Clelland, David
Moss, Malcolm


Cohen, Harry
Mudd, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mullin, Chris


Cox, Tom
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Cummings, John
Pawsey, James


Dunn, Bob
Pendry, Tom


Emery, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Franks, Cecil
Riddick, Graham


Fry, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Gordon, Mildred
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Summerson, Hugo


Gregory, Conal
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Tracey, Richard


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Walden, George


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hannam, John
Wall, Pat


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Watts, John


Hawkins, Christopher
Wells, Bowen


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Wiggin, Jerry


Holt, Richard
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wolfson, Mark


Irving, Charles



Janman, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jessel, Toby
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Kilfedder, James
Mrs Ann Clwyd.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Allen, Graham
Boswell, Tim


Alton, David
Bottomley, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Anderson, Donald
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buckley, George J.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Burt, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barron, Kevin
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Battle, John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beckett, Margaret
Chapman, Sydney


Beith, A. J.
Chope, Christopher


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Blair, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Critchley, Julian






Crowther, Stan
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cryer, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Curry, David
Kennedy, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Key, Robert


Darling, Alistair
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Knox, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Latham, Michael


Day, Stephen
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Don
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Doran, Frank
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Litherland, Robert


Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Eadie, Alexander
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Macdonald, Calum A.


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fatchett, Derek
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Favell, Tony
Maclean, David


Fearn, Ronald
McLeish, Henry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Flannery, Martin
McWilliam, John


Flynn, Paul
Madden, Max


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Forman, Nigel
Major, Rt Hon John


Forth, Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Foster, Derek
Maples, John


Fraser, John
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


French, Douglas
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Mellor, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michael, Alun


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grist, Ian
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grocott, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Ground, Patrick
Morley, Elliott


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Hague, William
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanley, Jeremy
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Harman, Ms Harriet
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
O'Neill, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hinchliffe, David
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howard, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howells, Geraint
Radice, Giles


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Richardson, Jo


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Ingram, Adam
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Robertson, George


Jack, Michael
Rogers, Allan


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Rowlands, Ted





Ruddock, Joan
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thorne, Neil


Scott, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Short, Clare
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sims, Roger
Wallace, James


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walley, Joan


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Ward, John


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Soley, Clive
Widdecombe, Ann


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stott, Roger



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Anthony Nelson and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Austin Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: (n), at end add
'except for recommendations (i), (iv) and (vi) in paragraph 39.'.—[Mr. Sims.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 243.

Division No. 233]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Alton, David
Grocott, Bruce


Armstrong, Hilary
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Ashby, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hawkins, Christopher


Barron, Kevin
Hayes, Jerry


Battle, John
Haynes, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Holt, Richard


Bermingham, Gerald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Blair, Tony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Blunkett, David
Irvine, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Irving, Charles


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Janman, Tim


Caborn, Richard
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Canavan, Dennis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kilfedder, James


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbett, Robin
Latham, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cox, Tom
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tarn
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Doran, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morley, Elliott


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fearn, Ronald
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flannery, Martin
Mudd, David


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Gale, Roger
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Page, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Price, Sir David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce






Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Redmond, Martin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Redwood, John
Wall, Pat


Rhodes James, Robert
Wallace, James


Riddick, Graham
Wareing, Robert N.


Robertson, George
Warren, Kenneth


Rooker, Jeff
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive



Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Miss Ann Widdecombe and


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. John Bowis.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allen, Graham
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Durant, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eastham, Ken


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Favell, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Margaret
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bell, Stuart
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Foster, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bidwell, Sydney
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
George, Bruce


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Buckley, George J.
Gould, Bryan


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ground, Patrick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clelland, David
Hayward, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cohen, Harry
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hinchliffe, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howells, Geraint


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)





Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jessel, Toby
Radice, Giles


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Renton, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Jo


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rowlands, Ted


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ruddock, Joan


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Leadbitter, Ted
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Squire, Robin


Madden, Max
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mans, Keith
Straw, Jack


Maples, John
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Meale, Alan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Walley, Joan


Murphy, Paul
Ward, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Nicholas


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Yeo, Tim


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Chris (Bath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Mr. Austin Mitchell and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Anthony Nelson.


Pendry, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 69.

Division No. 234]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Allen, Graham
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Alton, David
Ashton, Joe


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkinson, David


Amess, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Anderson, Donald
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)






Barron, Kevin
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Flannery, Martin


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Margaret
Fookes, Dame Janet


Beith, A. J.
Forman, Nigel


Bell, Stuart
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Freeman, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
French, Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fry, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
George, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hague, William


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buckley, George J.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harris, David


Canavan, Dennis
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carrington, Matthew
Haynes, Frank


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hind, Kenneth


Cohen, Harry
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Howard, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Geraint


Cormack, Patrick
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Couchman, James
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cummings, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cunningham, Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Dalyell, Tarn
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Charles


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Dixon, Don
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Doran, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eadie, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Eastham, Ken
Lilley, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Litherland, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Favell, Tony
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fearn, Ronald
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McCartney, Ian





MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Rowlands, Ted


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Ruddock, Joan


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Maclean, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


McLeish, Henry
Scott, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, Rt Hon John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Short, Clare


Mans, Keith
Sims, Roger


Maples, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Meale, Alan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mellor, David
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Sir David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stern, Michael


Morgan, Rhodri
Stevens, Lewis


Morley, Elliott
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Morrison, Sir Charles
Sumberg, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudd, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mullin, Chris
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Murphy, Paul
Thorne, Neil


Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Turner, Dennis


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


O'Neill, Martin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Hon William


Paice, James
Wall, Pat


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wallace, James


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Walley, Joan


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Ward, John


Portillo, Michael
Wareing, Robert N.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Prescott, John
Wheeler, John


Price, Sir David
Widdecombe, Ann


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Rathbone, Tim
Winnick, David


Redwood, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Renton, Tim
Worthington, Tony


Richardson, Jo
Yeo, Tim


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
'Mr. Austin Mitchell and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Anthony Nelson.


Rowe, Andrew



NOES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Ashby, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Butler, Chris
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Carttiss, Michael
Irving, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clelland, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Knapman, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Franks, Cecil
Leadbitter, Ted






Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Redmond, Martin


Lord, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Marland, Paul
Riddick, Graham


Marlow, Tony
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mills, Iain
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Moate, Roger
Skinner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Page, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Summerson, Hugo


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walden, George





Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Roger Sale and


Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. James Cram.


Wilkinson. John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House in its First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 141).

Insider Trading

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7310/87 and 8810/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 22nd May 1989 relating to insider trading; and supports the Government's view that a practical and workable Directive would demonstrate Member States' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading.
The draft insider dealing directive has two principal purposes. First, it will require member states to make insider dealing unlawful. Secondly, it will require them to co-operate in obtaining and exchanging information for enforcement purposes.
The House will recollect that it was a Conservative Government who, in 1973, first brought forward legislation to make insider dealing illegal in the United Kingdom. It was this Government who, in 1980, saw the measure on to the statute book. Britain was among the leaders in Europe in legislating in this area. Since 1980 we have made further changes, in the Financial Services Act 1986, with the aim of intensifying the drive against insider dealing.
Both in the drafting of legislation and in its operation, insider dealing law is intensely difficult, as every country in the world which has enacted it has discovered. In the discussions on the directive, I have been keen to ensure that the directive reflects our considerable success in enforcing the law. Like other member states, we sought a measure that was precise, that was practical and that was enforceable. That was not the case with the original draft. But I believe that, as a result of detailed discussions in Brussels, we are very close to a text that achieves those aims.
I turn now to the text of the directive itself. At its centre are the definitions of primary and secondary insider, and the prohibition on trading on inside information. The proposals put forward last year were very broad and vague. They did not require, for example, a primary insider to know that the information that he had was inside information, but they would have caught as primary insiders people whom we regard as secondary insiders—or even not as insiders at all. The text simply prohibited the taking advantage of insider information in buying or selling any transferable securities.
That all added up to a text that went very substantially beyond our law. The text was very wide ranging and in our judgment impossible to operate successfully. It would have greatly increased the area of uncertainty for honest people without making it any easier, and possibly much more difficult, to bring wrongdoers to book. As a result of lengthy and robust discussions in Brussels, we have now arrived at a text which reflects our own experience in this area of legislation.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to bring in criminal or civil sanctions with respect to the prohibitions included in the directive?

Mr. Maude: As my hon. Friend will know, our present law operates by way of criminal sanctions and, as I hope I am outlining, the directive, as it is emerging, will not go

significantly beyond what our present law requires, save in one area to which I shall refer. In those circumstances, there will certainly be no need for us to contemplate legislating or enacting this by way of civil rather than criminal sanctions. However, there may quite independently of that be a case for considering whether some sort of civil sanctions provide a better and more flexible means of enforcing the law in that area.
At the same time as arriving at a text that reflects broadly our experience, it will involve a modest strengthening of our law to prohibit certain insider transactions that are not properly caught at present. The definition of primary insider reflecting our own experience is much more precise, practicable and enforceable. The primary insider is prohibited from taking advantage in full knowledge of the facts. It has a new definition of primary insider that is clear and more restrictive than the original draft, thus helping to restore the balance between primary and secondary insiders. The text now prohibits taking advantage of inside information in buying or selling transferable securities to which the information relates, and that rider was missing in the earlier text. Each of the three key problems here has been resolved.
Our present law has been much criticised from time to time for its complexity—for example, the prohibition on a primary insider dealing is more than 100 words long—and on some occasions that complexity has not been helpful in the pursuit of offenders.
I have welcomed the opportunity presented by the Brussels discussions of going for rather more clarity and simplicity and at the same time a modest strengthening of our law to prohibit certain insider transactions that are not properly caught at present.
I cannot stress too much that it is extremely important that the prohibition on insider trading does not unintentionally and accidentally forbid such ordinary and proper business practices as a takeover, or any large purchase or sale of securities, but, at one stage, the draft text did this. I can tell the House that those practical problems, together with others relating to analysts, to market markers, and to permitted stabilisation activities, have all been resolved.
The second of the directive's strands is increased international co-operation. Insider dealing, like other financial frauds, is no respecter of frontiers. It is about as easy to insider deal on the London stock exchange from Paris as it is, for instance, from Norwich. International co-operation between regulators is already, in general, good. Again, Britain is among the leaders in Europe in that respect. The Companies Bill currently being considered in Committee contains special provisions for my Department to assist overseas regulators.
I should also mention one thing that is not in the directive. At one stage considerable, and justified, anxiety was created among companies at the suggestion that the directive would require them to release much more information. They might, absurdly enough, have had to announce that they had begun to think about making a decision before being in a position to take that decision or to act upon it. That would simply have flooded the market with useless information, while harming the ability of companies to conduct their own business in a sensible and practical manner. A proper flow of information to the market is, of course, vital, but it should be meaningful information.
I am glad to tell the House that the directive now contains a provision that, while it may modestly increase the flow of information to the market, does so in a sensible and contained way.
I should also tell the House that I propose, in implementing the directive, to redeem a pledge made by this Government in 1985: that insider dealing will be made an offence in all securities, not just corporate securities and options and futures based on them. That will bring within the scope of the legislation gilts and other securities.
The motion invites the House to support the Government's view that a practical and workable directive would demonstrate member states' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading. I believe that this is such a directive. We are and remain determined to take vigorous action against insider dealing. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms. Joyce Quin: There should be no doubt that insider dealing is a major crime. Many have claimed that there are no real victims and that prices are merely driven up—that is a natural operation of capital involving the necessary winners and losers. They suggest that the principles of the free market allow for people to take advantage of such a situation to gain profit. Fortunately, however, increasingly that view is held by the minority. The majority has concluded—I believe that it is the opinion of the House—that insider dealing is a form of theft. The victims sell shares, for example, on a false basis to people in possession of privileged information that will clearly affect the price of the share.
The crime also involves a betrayal of trust, in that people use secret information to deceive and to enrich themselves. On many occasions the loser, as we know, is the investor representing the interests of ordinary people —perhaps he looks after the savings, assurances or small shareholdings of such people. Those buying and selling shares without access to such secret information are often at the mercy of their opponents. Over a short time chain reactions can occur, often across national frontiers, as a result of the electronic, internationalised market, which causes great damage to unsuspecting individuals and firms.
Given the scale of insider trading scandals in the United Kingdom in recent years, it was right to take action. The Government introduced legislation in 1980 and that was consolidated in the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 when criminal sanctions were introduced. Since then the maximum prison sentence for insider trading has increased from two to seven years, although the number of prosecutions for insider trading has been small despite the existence, in theory, of those penalties. I shall return to that issue later. We believe that the practical control and punishment of insider dealing is far from satisfactory currently.
We welcome the EEC directive and we shall not divide the House on it. It would be rather hard to take exception to the carefully worded motion on the Order Paper. It is important that in the large European market that is supposed to become a reality in 1992 there should be systems to control and to punish insider trading.
We welcome both the co-ordination of rules and the obligation to exchange information. It would also be highly unsatisfactory if we were trying to bring successful prosecutions for insider dealing in the large European market when much securities trading was being done across the national boundaries of national authorities which had weaker rules or did not regard insider trading as a serious offence. It is clear that if standards are more lax elsewhere there may be a temptation for people to do business in other financial centres, which could mean a move towards a general reduction in standards rather than the improvement which we wish to see.
It is also worrying that some other EC countries do not have adequate rules on insider trading at present. As I understand it, in addition to the United Kingdom, only Denmark and France penalise insider trading. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the attitude of other countries towards the directive? He seemed to indicate that agreement was likely and that many of the difficulties had been sorted out. Have any of the member countries any serious objections and are those which, to date, have not had rules on insider trading happy at the prospect of an EC directive on the issue?
The issue matters to us more than to many other countries because our securities market is by far the most important and is for us a much more important means of raising equity finance than it is in other EC countries. Therefore, although the treaty base being used for this is article 100A and although I fully understand that that article is used to govern internal market decisions, it would not be a good idea if we were outvoted on the directive because our interest is so great. Fortunately, that does not seem likely.
I note that there was a change of treaty base governing the directive. It has not been fully explained why it was necessary to change the base. Will the Minister tell us whether doing so has had any practical effect? As I understand it, both article 54 and article 100A rely on the majority voting system.
Will the Minister also give a few more details about the timetable, and how certain, if anything can be said to be certain, agreement is likely to be? I believe that there is to be a meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers on 19 June at which this may be considered and that there is likely to be a meeting of officials before that. Will the Minister say whether that is so? Has there been ministerial representation at the various meetings to discuss the directive? How recent was that? Will there be ministerial, rather than merely official, representation when the subject is next discussed?
The fact that we have the most experience of trying to tackle the problems of insider trading within the EC does not mean that we have been particularly successful. On recent evidence, we have been far from successful. I hope that the directive will be more effective than our existing provisions. The major weakness of our regime is its failure to bring prosecutions. We have the rules, authorities have powers, evidence often seems to be available, but people are not charged and convicted.
As has been mentioned by Opposition Members in previous debates on this subject, we have reason to believe that the practice is more widespread than is usually thought. To back that up, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and women have pointed to the high proportion of takeover bids that are preceded by erratic movements in the share prices of the companies involved.

Mr. Tim Smith: I understand the hon. Lady's frustration at the lack of prosecutions in this area, but does she think it enough to say that there seems to be sufficient evidence? Is not the problem that often there is not sufficient evidence and that it is difficult to obtain hard evidence in support of a prosecution?

Ms. Quin: There is evidence, but it is often not hard enough to make a prosecution stick. A great deal of worry is expressed in the press and elsewhere about the small number of prosecutions, and there is a feeling that the problem is not really being t ackled. I refer the House to an article in The Independent of 16 November of last year:
Despite the major play the DTI has made out of its campaign against insider dealing, the crackdown has in reality been unimpressive"—

Mr. Cash: The hon. Lady will also note that in that same article it was stated of the Opposition spokesman that he drew
attention…to what he believed to be 17 prima facie cases of insider dealing. His analysis of the problem, however, would certainly have caused some hilarity among professional insider dealers. He had taken 17 cases where a company's share price rose sharply ahead of a bid announcement. This, he said, was evidence of a leak and massive insider dealing.
In the part of the article to which the hon. Lady was not going to refer, the attitude of the Opposition spokesman was seriously criticised.

Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman must claim to be a mind reader. Since I had just begun to quote from the article, I do not know how he can say with such authority that I was not going to refer to a section that appeared later. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that The Independent article takes a line similar to one in the Evening Standard and to yet another in The Economist. The hon. Gentleman may be about to wave another sheaf of articles at me, but I assure him that I am not quoting an isolated instance. I am quoting several newspapers and journals—

Mr. Maude: Earlier, the hon. Lady referred to evidence of widespread unprosecuted insider dealing. Does she accept that the mere existence of a movement in shares shortly before a takeover bid is announced is by no means conclusive evidence of insider dealing? It may simply be evidence of the bidding company building up a platform for its bid in advance of announcing its offer. There is nothing improper in that.

Ms. Quin: I did not claim that there was. I claimed that there had been such a large number of such movements that it raised questions, which I am sure the Minister would concede.

Mr. Maude: I must press this. The hon. Lady said that there was evidence of widespread unprosecuted insider dealing. The only evidence she has referred to, apart from quoting a comment in a newspaper which persuaded none of us, was the movement of some shares before a bid. I have pointed out, and she seems tacitly to accept, that there is a perfectly plausible and proper explanation for that. I ask again: where is the evidence of this widespread unprosecuted insider dealing?

Ms. Quin: Has the Minister examined all such cases of movements and is he entirely satisfied that there have been no irregularities? Unless he has, I cannot be absolutely reassured by what he says.

Mr. Maude: Of course I have. The hon. Lady should inform herself a little better about these matters. If there is untoward movement in share prices or any evidence of dealing in advance of a bid, the stock exchange's insider dealing group conducts an investigation. If there is prima facie evidence of insider dealing, it is referred to my Department. There have been a great many such cases since the powers to appoint investigators under the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force. These inspectors have draconian powers—to quote the Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords—to gain evidence. I can assure the hon. Lady that all cases are properly investigated. If there is any evidence of impropriety it is pursued relentlessly.

Ms. Quin: I am certainly prepared to consider what the Minister has said. In preparing for this debate, I had to look back at the various debates that have taken place. I found that the Opposition did not seem to be satisfied with what seemed to be rather complacent comments by the Minister.
Perhaps I may continue to deal with the article in The Independent, even though that is proving difficult in view of the many interventions. The article claims:
There are now 18 investigations under way and a further seven cases of suspected insider dealing under consideration. Some prominent City names are said to be involved. It is a fair bet, though, that few if any of these investigations will be addressing the real, endemic problem of insider dealing—that of the large-scale professional insider dealing rings. It is well known in the City that such rings, which often operate on an international scale covering a number of different markets, exist and they are big business: finding them and successfully prosecuting their members is another matter.
That seems to call for a clear system on an international level as well as on a national level. Presumably that is why most of us are in favour of the European directive.

Mr. Cash: Earlier the hon. Lady and the Minister said that the directive contains provisions to deal with matters relating to co-operation between member states and third party states as well. I do not understand the hon. Lady's point. Surely she understands that if the directive contains provisions dealing with the points raised in The Independent that ought to deal with the matter.

Ms. Quin: That assumes that the directive has been satisfactorily completed. I am raising matters that I hope will be taken into account in the final form of the directive. The directive has still not been completely agreed by the Council of Ministers and the debate is about putting forward ideas which we hope will be given due weight, whether or not they are actually printed in the directive at present. I hope that the directive will make the system simpler and clearer, that its provisions will be easy to enforce and that prosecutions will be easier.
There has been a mixed reaction to the directive. In the debate in the European Parliament, MEPs from Government and Opposition parties in the United Kingdom supported the directive. I pay tribute to my colleague, the MEP for Derbyshire, who presented the report on the subject and received widespread support from the other MEPs. There has been City anger at the European Community proposals which have been described as too wide and too far reaching.
I have received a brief from the Confederation of British Industry, as I am sure have other hon. Members. It


deals with the proposed directive, and shows that the CBI feels that there are still considerable problems of definition. The CBI brief says:
The CBI, therefore, asks Members to ensure that:
When the Directive is adopted—and it has to be written into UK law—there will not be any material alteration to the present UK law.
That does not seem to be a suggestion that I can support. If an alteration would mean an improvement, I do not see why there should not be a "material alteration" to the United Kingdom law.

Mr. Maude: Would the hon. Lady like to suggest the specific improvements that she would like to see us have embodied in the directive or passed into our own law?

Ms. Quin: There may be improved ways to get information and bring about prosecutions. The Government seem to be satisfied with the way things have worked out. Despite the barracking that I received when I referred to press accounts of this subject, I do not believe that all the articles in the press are unjustified or that the Government's complacency is justified.
Some final comments on the directive have been made by the Law Society, in particular in an article in the Law Society's Gazette of 2 June, which I wonder whether the Minister has seen. He is not responding, so I do not know whether he has. If he has not, I recommend that he does, because the submission from the Law Society makes valid points about the problems of definition and about the scope of the directive. It also makes points about the extra-territorial implications of the directive, and the Law Society is concerned that the directive appears to contemplate only transactions in which the EEC territories are involved. It asks about what happens when the insider is within a member state, but the transaction is carried out in a non-member state. Has that aspect been considered in the EEC negotiations?
The Government's explanatory memorandum, submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 9 September 1987, says in point 20:
The provisions in the proposal which relate to co-operation between Member States will need to be considered in the light of other initiatives in this field—in particular, the possible convention of the Council of Europe.
What progress has there been in the Council of Europe? What implications will negotiations within the Council of Europe have for the passing of this directive?
The Government's explanatory memorandum also says that the United Kingdom has signed memoranda of understanding on the exchange of regulatory information in the financial services sector with the United States. Will that agreement extend to other EEC countries if the directive is agreed?
There remain problems about the directive that need to be sorted out. Of themselves, they do not negate the need for such a directive. The European national moves to stamp out insider trading are vital, but they also have to mean that our system becomes more rather than less effective. If this is the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels, we shall welcome the directive.

Mr. William Cash: The motion invites us to support
the Government's view that a practical and workable Directive would demonstrate Member States' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading.
I shall not go into all the details, because most of them are in the explanatory memorandum, but a considerable number of ambiguities need to be resolved before 19 June. This excellent document is quite remarkable in its way. It is the first time that I can remember an explanatory memorandum that has gone into such detail. It gives advice to the House, or those who wish to read these things, as to the manner in which the original proposals have been amended as they have gone through the various stages.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) berated my hon. Friend the Minister for perhaps not reading an article by the Law Society, published on 2 June. Judging by her concluding remarks, I have grave doubts as to whether she has read the explanatory memorandum of 22 May 1989. She referred to one in September 1987, but the important bit is the memorandum of May 1989, which came to the Select Committee on European Legislation, contained those remarks to which I have referred, and made it clear that considerable progress had been made. However, there are still a number of problems with the directive, some of which are inherent in it and some of which, no doubt, can be resolved within the framework when it is implemented under the European Communities Act 1972.
Will the new formulation about knowledge, which is the context in which insider dealing arises, impute knowledge only where Chinese walls have been breached? I appreciate that that is a fairly technical question, but it is important that hon. Members clearly understand it. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the directive will enable us to continue to permit takeovers. He also answered my earlier question about whether it would be dealt with under criminal or civil law.
An interesting article appeared in The Economist today criticising the federal court of New York for the manner in which it is trying to impose its sanctions extra-territorially outside the United States under rules devised there. It raises an important question about legal reciprocity. As I said in the Committee considering the Financial Services Bill, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and I sat some years ago, when dealing with international law—and I made this point in an article that I wrote in "Lloyd's log" as well—if one is dealing with a small global village, there must be some parity between different legislative systems, because at the press of a button one can effect transactions of immense complexity. Insider dealing depends on when and how knowledge was acquired. Courts have experienced difficulty about the meaning of the words "knowledge obtained". I am glad to see the Attorney-General nodding, because an important case was considered quite recently. To fix the liability in a manner that will give rise to a prosecution that will stand muster it is essential, first, that one is sufficiently certain about the law; secondly, that the prosecuting authority is prepared to act effectively; and, thirdly, because of the nature of international transactions in a small global village, that there is some relationship between legal systems.
Serious doubt has been expressed about the vires of the treaty. We are aware of something called the vires committee, which is a forum not of medical but legal diagnosis. I believe that it has been considering carefully the way in which article 100A is being put forward as the treaty base for the directive. If we do not try to restrain the competence of the Commission—the Prime Minister made this point recently about the tobacco industry—when it tries to go beyond the lines of the treaty, we shall be in serious trouble. The European Court of Justice has a tendency towards political integration, as I have said on many occasions. It is essential that we ensure that the treaty base is the proper one.
The legal adviser to the Select Committee on European Legislation criticised the use of article 100A. I understand that the Government gave an assurance to the Committee that they would provide a statement on the manner in which the treaty base was being dealt with. I am not aware that such a statement has been produced, but I hope that it will be before our meeting on Wednesday. If we are to do our job properly, it is important that we are fully aware of the basis on which the treaty will be used, and this includes the Single European Act.
The question is: who does one prosecute? There still appears to be confusion on this important .question. Is it the individual or is it the company? It appears from the explanatory memorandum that it is the individual. The British Bankers Association sent me a letter today showing that it thought that it could apply to companies as well. This matter should be resolved. Perhaps there is a simple answer, but there still appears to be some uncertainty.
It is essential that we remove ambiguities and confusion. This measure will be an important ingredient in the fight against criminal insider dealing in the Community. Other countries do not have these laws. We have had them since 1980 and we must ensure that they are used effectively. I congratulate the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister on the manner in which the matter has been dealt with so far, but there is considerable scope for removing much of the remaining uncertainty.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I support this fairly general, straightforward and simple Government motion on insider trading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said, I do not think that any of us would deny the need for legislation. As steps are taken towards an internal market, it is obvious that legislation is needed across the Community.
I have never traded on the stock exchange. I have to rely on what others, including Conservative Members, tell me happens there. That is not to say that I believe everything that I am told. It is a fiendish and difficult area in which to legislate. The Government's legislation and the development of explanatory memorandums over the past few years as this proposed directive has been discussed at European level can only reinforce our feelings about the difficulties.
Questions have been raised about the legal base. An extract dated 7 June from the 24th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation for the 1988–89 Session was placed in the Vote Office today. It said that in its 23rd report the Committee recommended "further

consideration" of two documents—one relating to insider trading, and the other containing amendments to the original draft directive. It asked the Government
to submit to the Committee, ahead of the debate, a statement of its position on the proposed choice of treaty base and the reasons why it no longer considers Article 54(3)(g) to be appropriate, as its earlier Explanatory Memoranda had not covered this point.
This statement has now been received from the Department of Trade and Industry and is reproduced as an Appendix to this paragraph.
I will not read out the Department's three-point explanation, but I will say that it seems to be an extremely sensible interpretation of article 54(3)(g) and its shortcomings in covering the draft directive. Article 100A, which deals with moves towards the internal market, seems the most sensible step to take.
In considering the difficulties that still exist, paragraph 35iii on page 9 of the explanatory memorandum mentions
the uncertainty about the position of authorised stabilisation operations.
As I understand it, they have been custom and practice on the British stock exchange. From what I have read, they seem to be a reasonably harmless way of trying to establish markets for trading in companies that are new to the stock exchange. I would be interested, purely for information, to know what the Minister feels is the likelihood of proposals in the draft directive which would take account of that point, or whether there are any countries that feel so strongly about the matter that they would not consider such proposals. However, as decisions are being made by qualified majority, there will be an opportunity to carry the proposals forward.
On the issue of just when insider information is misused, there seem still to be areas that require clarification. I found the explanatory memorandum tremendously helpful in setting out the way in which the proposal and the nuances of earlier references in the directive have been changed. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for a lay person such as myself to follow the memorandum because it is nine pages long. It would be beneficial to hon. Members if the explanatory memorandum took the form of a comparison of the earlier version of the draft directive with the latest version.

Mr. Cash: I share that thought with the hon. Gentleman because I believe that it is important that people should be able to make a reasonable assessment. There is a way of dealing with the problem which is known as a Keeling schedule. It shows, in heavy black type, the amendments made by reference to the original, so one can then see the document as a whole and also the differences that have been introduced. That would be useful for legislation taken on the Floor of the House and for legislation that is taken in the Standing Committees on European Community documents.

Mr. Griffiths: The amended form of the draft directive is presented in the European Parliament papers in the form of two columns. One can read the original directive and any changes are set out opposite. The word "unchanged" is printed where the draft has remained the same. If the Government gave us a copy of the amended directive as a single document, together with all the valuable points that are made in the explanatory memorandum of the way in which further changes have been incorporated following discussions in Brussels, it would be useful in dealing with


legislation. I found it difficult earlier today and over the weekend to sort out exactly what the proposal was and what changes had been made.
I refer also to the article on insider trading in the Law Society's Gazette, No. 22, which was provided by the helpful research department in the Library and which was posted on the board this afternoon.
I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) about the extra-terrestrial implications of the way in which the directive is intended to work. The writer of the Law Society article, Dr. Janet Dine, of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and a member of the company law committee, is of the opinion that under the terms of the directive as drafted someone who has committed an offence in Britain on the Paris stock exchange may have to be extradited to Paris for the case to be heard.
If that is the case, it is a drawback in the directive. There should be some way of framing the provisions to allow the case to be heard either in the state where the person concerned lives or where he or she has initiated the offence of insider trading. As I am neither a stockbroker nor a lawyer, I do not know whether the concept of the European legal space, which is referred to so often in the context of the development of the single market and other ideas on closer co-operation, could be useful in a directive of this nature.
The Minister said that satisfactory agreement had been reached over exactly what information needs to be published and at what stage when a company is thinking about a takeover bid, but I wonder whether that agreement also covers issues relating to the disclosure of an offence. Article 2(b) of the amended directive prevents a director recommending that his company should bid for another company when he has insider information concerning that target as it would prevent the director of a target company from selling issues when he has similar information. Can the Minister tell us anything about that?
I turn to the vexed question of the effectiveness of our legislation. Several articles have been referred to, all of which I have read, if not digested entirely. One in particular struck me as saying something that deserves at least a response from the Minister. It was an article in The Economist on 15 October 1988 relating to the activities in buying options in Consolidated Gold Fields before Minorco's £3 million bid for that company. The Economist was of the opinion that if the DTI had used sections 442, 444 and 445 of the Companies Act 1985, it could have taken action against the insider trading that The Economist claims was happening at that time. Unlike the other reference in The Economist this week, glowing reference is made to the activities of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States where nominee accounts can be blocked when there is some difficulty in establishing exactly who is operating on the market. ConsGold tried to get information from Liechtenstein and Liberian banks that were involved in the process but it was unable to do so, naturally enough.

Mr. Tim Smith: Instead of reading articles in newspapers, why does not the hon. Gentleman try reading the Companies Act 1985 and the Financial Services Act 1986? If he did so, he would discover that the Companies Act provides precisely the sort of power that he has been

describing to disfranchise shares. I understand that that power was used only the other day when the identity of the beneficial owners could not be established. The Financial Services Act contains extremely draconian powers to deal with insider trading.

Mr. Griffiths: I was saying that, on the basis of the powers that are available in the Companies Act 1985, a claim was being made that the Department of Trade and Industry had failed to act appropriately in respect of ConsGold. I am asking the Minister to comment on the accusations that have been directed against the DTI.

Mr. Richard Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman checked them out?

Mr. Griffiths: I am checking them out by asking the Minister to tell us exactly what the Department did at the time of the ConsGold affair. Did it think about implementing sections 442, 444, and 445 of the Companies Act? The Economist cannot be described as a mischief maker for the fair operation of free markets. It seemed that there was some weight in what it was reporting or that the Minister would be able to quell the fears to which it was drawing attention.

Mr. Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman checked this out?

Mr. Griffiths: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would rise and say something directly to me through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, instead of muttering.

Mr. Holt: Did the hon. Gentleman carry out any research? Did he contact The Economist and make any attempt to understand that which he is talking about?

Mr. Griffiths: I know exactly what I am talking about. I am referring to the claims made in The Economist and I am asking the Minister to comment upon them. A substantial accusation has been made, for we know that the buying options amounted to about £15 million. Against that background, it seems appropriate to ask the Minister whether he thinks that something along the lines of the SEC of the United States would be a viable option on the European scene.

Mr. Maude: This has been a short but enjoyable debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for the serious nature of their contributions to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke of the serious defects of the text at earlier stages. I am happy to be able to reassure him that by dint of careful negotiation those defects have been removed. As for Chinese walls, I can give him the assurance that knowledge under the directive is imputed only where it exists. The anxiety which was widespread and justifiable at an earlier stage has, I believe, been removed. My hon. Friend raised another anxiety about whether a company might be found to be guilty of insider dealing under the directive. The answer to that is no. That is another matter which has been resolved satisfactorily.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked about stabilisation. He properly referred to it as a legitimate practice in the market that exists by custom and practice. It is formally legitimised and closely regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986 or by regulations made under that Act. He will be relieved to know that further amendments to the text made during discussions


remove the anxiety properly felt on that score. The hon. Gentleman made a few remarks about the explanatory memorandum that I submitted. He seemed to criticise it for being excessively lengthy, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford complimented me on the way—

Mr. Win Griffiths: What I said was that I found the memorandum extremely helpful but that it would have been more helpful if the changes described in the memorandum had been set alongside the appropriate parts of the amended directive so we could see clearly what changes had been made.

Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was complimentary about the way in which the explanatory memorandum was framed. The difficulty about the suggestion that was made is that the working papers on which discussions are held are confidential, and properly regarded as such by all the member states and by the Commission. That helps to ensure that member states are free to express their views in a sensible environment but means that it is often not possible to make draft texts available.
The hon. Member for Bridgend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made a number of useful and interesting suggestions about the way in which the scrutiny programme might be improved, and I should like, if I may, to consider carefully whether we can give effect to them, because we aim to be as helpful as we can in making the process of scrutiny work.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend said that it was essential that we should maintain confidentiality, and gave reasons that we have heard so often before. Does he not agree that this matter is greatly overplayed and that it would be infinitely better if the texts were made available at an earlier stage? I am sure that he will be aware that the Leader of the House is considering whether that could be done. That would allow us—as happens in the Danish Parliament—the opportunity to examine the texts as they emerge so that we did not constantly have to deal with matters that were shrouded in secrecy.

Mr. Maude: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I undertake to consider it seriously, along with the other points that he made.
Let me deal with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). She asked about the timetable for further progress. I believe that it is intended that the matter should be discussed by ECOFIN next Monday, when the United Kingdom will be represented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She asked about other countries' views. They must answer for themselves, although I can tell her that a number of countries have had difficulties along the way —many of them similar to the difficulties that I have outlined. Broadly speaking, those difficulties have been resolved, although some important issues remain unresolved. It may well be possible to resolve all those matters so that the measure can be agreed before very long.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East asked who had represented the United Kingdom in the discussions. There have been discussions both in the working group and to some extent in COREPER. Ministers do not attend those

meetings and it would be impossible for them to do so. Nevertheless, I have kept in close touch with the progress of those discussions. I have made sure that Ministers are informed fully and have directed the process of negotiation. It is by no means uncommon—as the hon. Lady, with her experience of these matters, will know—for something to be agreed without Ministers' attending meetings or discussing the measure formally at any stage. That does not mean to say that it happens without Ministers' informing the process of discussion, as I assure her they have in this case.
The hon. Lady referred to the role of the European Parliament and expressed pride that her colleague the MEP for Derbyshire had produced a report on insider trading. I have to tell her that the European Parliament considered the initial draft, which was, frankly, a mess: it was unworkable, it was too broad, it would not have been effective and it would have jeopardised the position of many perfectly respectable, legitimate and honest people. Yet the European Parliament warmly endorsed the proposal. She might consider whether it would be proper to temper her praise for the work of her colleague in that respect.

Ms. Quin: Has there not also been adverse reaction to the second draft because it goes wider than the first?

Mr. Maude: There have been many drafts. It has been a fact-moving negotiation. The proposal has been subject to constant amendment, broadly in the direction that we have sought, to narrow its scope so that it is both effective and enforceable.
The draft considered by the European Parliament was, by fairly common consent, thought to be hopeless. As I said, the European Parliament warmly endorsed it.
The hon. Lady marred her performance by mounting what she might claim to be an attack on the Government's performance in pursuing insider dealing. She badly misjudged it. She relied only on evidence of remarks by some commentators and she did her reputation no good. I have a very high regard for her abilities, but I feel bound to say that she did not inform herself properly.

Ms. Quin: There were a large number of articles. Can the Minister tell me that all those were wrong, that none of the cases mentioned involved insider dealing, that all prosecutions that should have been made have been made, and that no one has escaped the net of the Government's system? If so, I shall be delighted.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady has not referred to any case about which she can assert that insider dealing has occurred and not been pursued, and nor did any of the articles to which she referred. She relied on assertions that there was a certain amount of insider dealing that had not been subject to prosecution. It will not do to make such assertions without the slightest evidence to sustain them. The evidence relied on was the assertion that before some takeovers there were movements in share prices. I have shown conclusively that there is frequently a proper explanation for that—a company may properly be building a platform before announcing its bid. There is nothing improper in that. There is no evidence in anything to which the hon. Lady referred to show that a large amount of insider dealing is not being pursued. She should not make irresponsible assertions.
The directive, which I believe will be agreed before long, provides for a useful addition to our domestic law. It means that we can rely on sensible law being implemented and operated in other member states. It will be supplemented by the Council of Europe convention on insider dealing, which we hope to sign and ratify later this year. All in all, it is a good move forward in the fight against insider dealing. I ask the House to accept the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7310/87 and 8810/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 22nd May 1989 relating to insider trading; and supports the Government's view that a practical and workable Directive would demonstrate Member States' common desire to take vigorous action against insider trading.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

That this House takes note of the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 15th October 1987 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department on 27th October and 25th November 1987 relating to negotiations between the European Community and Japan under GATT Article XXIV.6, on 15th October 1987 relating to negotiations between the Community and Argentina under GATT Article XXIV.6 and on 21st March 1989 relating to negotiations between the Community and Canada under GATT Article XXIV.6; and endorses the Government's view that the agreements with these countries are satisfactory given the Community's obligations under GATT.—[Mr Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

HEALTH AND SAFETY

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5211/88, Part 1 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 20th March 1989, 10166/88 and the proposals described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 2nd June 1989, relating to safety and health of workers at the workplace; supports the broad thrust of the common position adopted on these proposals by the Council of Ministers as a step towards the establishment of high standards of safety in workplaces throughout the Community; and endorses the Government's view that United Kingdom law generally achieves the objectives of the proposal.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Heath Comprehensive School

Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to present a petition from my constituents in the Heath and Holmewood area of north-east Derbyshire.
Derbyshire county council has proposed to the Department of Education and Science that the Heath school for 11 to 16-year-olds should be closed. Although the council has a good record as a local education authority, this part of its plan for the area is seriously flawed.
I am pleased to present and support the petition, as I was pleased to support my constituents when a deputation met the Minister on Thursday. The petition reads:
To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of Heath and Holmewood, Derbyshire sheweth that proposals to close Heath Comprehensive school would deprive parents of the right to choose that their children be educated in a modern, well-maintained, purpose-built school of proven worth;
Cause present and future pupils increased travel problems, particularly in winter; increase stress and provide no educational benefit;
Deprive the community of an important local asset of which it is justifiably proud;
Cause increased social deprivation in an already deprived area;
Divide a community linked by the school.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the closure of Heath Comprehensive school.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will pray that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent the closure of Heath Comprehensive school.
That is signed by Mrs. Sally Holland of, 5 Gorse bank, Heath, Chesterfield and another 1,018 constituents.

To lie upon the Table.

Greyhound Racing

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

Mr. Tim Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this evening the subject of greyhound racing. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office for coming to the House to reply to the debate. I am glad, too, to see a number of hon. Members present who I know have an interest in the matter, including my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
I have raised the subject because I am a great enthusiast of greyhound racing. I have attended several meetings recently and they have been most enjoyable occasions. It may be that my hon. Friend has not been to a greyhound meeting in the recent past and I urge and thoroughly recommend him to take the opportunity to attend one.
Next week's derby, worth £30,000 to the winner, will he watched by more than 10,000 racegoers and will be followed avidly by millions of people via the media. No, it did not take place at Epsom a week ago—this is the classic of the classics, the Greyhound Derby. It is the culmination of six rounds of competition among 200 runners, and it will be run at Plough lane, Wimbledon.
This is the start of the greyhound festival week and it is an appropriate time to look at the sport of greyhound racing and how it has fared over the past 10 years.
Greyhound racing is popular, but under-financed. Attendances are going up on the more popular courses, but smaller ones are still under threat from property developers. Ten years ago there were 48 courses, but today there are only 35, which race under the National Greyhound Racing Club rules.
Crowd violence and drunkenness have never been a problem and most tracks in recent years have become much more upmarket and can offer a sophisticated dinner and evening out. Nonetheless, the underlying tendency is that the sport is getting poorer while the off-course bookmakers, through their betting office chains, are getting richer. Standards countrywide for racegoers and the greyhounds are not improving as fast as they should.
The heart of the problem is that greyhound racing, as with horseracing, is unable to extract a fair price from the off-course betting shops for the use of its product. The situation is exacerbated for dog racing, which gets no levy and only totally insignificant sums from the off-course betting industry, despite the fact that the sport now provides nearly one third of off-course betting revenue for the bookmakers. As horseracing receives an off-course betting levy administered by the Horserace Betting Levy Board, so should greyhound racing receive an off-course betting levy.
The bookmakers argue that most greyhound race meetings take place in the evenings, when betting offices are closed. However, that does not prevent punters from placing their bets on evening dogs during the daytime when the shops are open—and thousands do.
The bookmakers say that almost all their greyhound business is conducted on the afternoon meetings. That may be true, but those afternoon meetings—although the bookmakers own some of the tracks—are all part of NGRC greyhound racing and subject to NGRC rules, stewardship, licensing and discipline. All the greyhounds,

their owners and trainers are NGRC-registered. The meetings could not be run in the absence of a supervisory authority for greyhound racing whose integrity is assured by independent stewards to the satisfaction of the licensing authority and the Home Office, which has overall responsibility for the conduct of betting sports.
All off-course greyhound betting takes place on the results of racing at NGRC-licensed tracks. It amounts to more than a £1 billion turnover for the off-course bookmakers. In betting offices the same 10 per cent. deduction is made for a bet on a greyhound as for a bet on a horse. That permits the bookmaker to recover betting duty and levy. Since greyhound racing has no levy, however, that part of the money taken from greyhound punters, supposedly to cover the levy, is not passed on to greyhound racing. The bookmakers keep it and the punters do not know that. In effect, the bookmakers make a levy charge on greyhound punters and keep the proceeds to boost their own profits. Because the bookmakers are able to exploit greyhound punters in that way, it makes sense for them to maximise their greyhound racing betting, which is what they have been doing. Between the years 1977 and 1988 the amount of off-course betting turnover on greyhounds increased from 18 to 27 per cent. of the total. Betting on horses went down from 82 to 72 per cent.
As long as bookmakers are able to charge greyhound punters for a levy that does not exist, the composition of off-course betting will continue to change to the detriment of horseracing and therefore to the detriment of the horseracing levy.
The statutory 8 per cent. betting duty applies just as much to off-course greyhound betting as to off-course horse betting, so the Government have an equal interest in both. But the greyhound betting public is not being protected in the same way as the horserace betting public because greyhound racing has no levy income to help fund veterinary work, or to improve security and dope testing, particularly in the increasing use of steroids. It has no equivalent to the equine research centre or the Racecourse Security Services companies, both of which are funded by virtue of the horserace betting levy. Why should the punter who bets on a dog and pays 8 per cent. to the Government not be protected in the same way as the punter who bets on a horse and pays 8 per cent?
A levy for greyhound racing would provide the necessary financing to improve protection for the public. Annual betting turnover on greyhounds now exceeds £1£3 billion and a levy for the sport similar to the horseracing levy would yield between £10 million and £11 million. It would also remove the bookmakers' incentive to exploit betting on greyhounds at the expense of the horseracing levy.
Many people are now beginning to question the fairness of the present situation, which leaves greyhound racing out in the cold. In the absence of a levy, much thought has been given to some alternative funding mechanism to provide a proper balance between the supplier and the retailer of the betting product. The ideal alternative would have been the control by the greyhound racing and horseracing authorities of the satellite communications company which distributes betting information and live television picture commentaries from the greyhound stadium to the off-course betting shops. But here again there is a marked imbalance. Control of Satellite Information Services Ltd., known as SIS, rests with the


bookmakers, who appear to have no intention of relinquishing that control, or of allowing greyhound interests to have any stake in the company.
In the first placement of SIS shares the big four bookmakers took 45 per cent. of the 60 per cent. which were allocated, the Horserace Tote took 5 per cent. and the Racecourse Association 10 per cent. This put the bookmaker in the driving seat during the vital period when the company was being established. The result has been, as we see in the latest announcement relating to the imminent placing of the remaining 40 per cent. of SIS shares, that the big bookmakers are calling the shots once again. They are saying that none of the unplaced shares will be allowed to go to horseracing or greyhound racing, at least until 1992, when there is the vague promise that the company will go public. That means that if bookmakers have their way, racing will have to join the queue for shares with everybody else.
Since Sears Securities has sold its William Hill betting shops chain to Mecca Bookmakers, a new allocation of shares has been announced. Ladbrokes, the combination of William Hill and Mecca, and Corals, the big three, are to share between them 45 per cent. of SIS, and the Tote's holding will be increased by 1 per cent. to 6 per cent., giving bookmaking interests 51 per cent. Sears Securities is to keep just under 13 per cent., leaving only 26 per cent. for the outside world. The Racecourse Association, representing horseracing, remains with its handout of 10 per cent.
Clearly the bookmakers have no intention of letting other partners into SIS and horseracing may find its negotiating hand rather short of trumps in years to come. Greyhound racing, meanwhile, holds no cards at all despite the fact that two greyhound race meetings are beamed live every afternoon into off-course betting offices.
The merger of Mecca Bookmakers, owned by Grand Metropolitian plc, and the William Hill Organisation is presently the subject of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. The merger serves only to aggravate the situation and give the big three bookmakers and their associates a bigger stake in the control of the only means of distributing betting information to betting shops.
The merger will also further restrict competition in the betting market and strengthen the influence of the major bookmaking companies over the Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services company which was established to obtain from NGRC licensed greyhound racecourses a racing service for off-course outlets during betting office opening hours. That might have developed into the ideal mechanism for paying to greyhound racing a proper price for its product. Unfortunately it has not, because the big bookmakers have also managed to usurp the sport's position there.
Two of the big three bookmakers, Coral and Ladbrokes, now own and operate four of the eight greyhound tracks which, in 1988–89, supplied the greyhound service to betting offices. A fifth track supplying the bookmaker service is Newcastle, which is owned by Ladbrokes and leased to a private company to operate. A sixth is Hackney, whose owners, Brent Walker Ltd., purchased 119 betting shops from William Hill at the time of the merger with Mecca. Bookmaking interests control six out of the eight tracks which supply greyhound racing to bookmakers.
When the law governing the control of betting at greyhound tracks was enacted it became an offence for the proprietor of any greyhound stadium to run a book or have any interest in bookmaking at that stadium. The public interest objective was to prevent organisers of races from offering betting odds against runners. The offence is now to be found in section 19 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which remains in force today. The law applies only to on-course betting. Thus, bookmakers who are also track proprietors can run a book in their betting shops on the racing taking place at their tracks. In other words, the law does not extend to the bookmaking companies which now organise off-course betting on greyhound racing, taking enormous numbers of bets on races that they and their employees arrange at the tracks which they own.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the law appears anomalous and should be brought up to date. I am suggesting that the spirit of section 19, if not the letter of the law, is being contravened because no safeguard exists for the off-course betting public such as that which exists for racegoers. The spirit of section 19 is being abused by all the major bookmakers. Would it not make sense, in the greyhound punters' interests, to take a leaf out of horseracing's book and prohibit bookmakers from using their own greyhound tracks to supply any form of greyhound racing and betting service to their own betting shops? If the law was changed in this way, and the sport of greyhound racing was given some form of enforceable copyright in its race results, market forces might prevail.
The Government-appointed members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board have made it clear that they believe that there should be a direct market mechanism between racing and the betting industry. In the absence of this mechanism, horseracing and greyhound racing should be treated equally.
I conclude that the existing horserace betting levy should be extended to include greyhound racing and, indeed, other sports on which off-course betting takes place, although I understand that, pro rata to the two racing sports, the other sports account for only about 1 per cent. of the total. I also conclude that there should be an inquiry into off-course betting's unhealthy influence over afternoon greyhound racing.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I welcome the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has given us to respond to some of the anxieties of the greyhound racing industry and of those who enjoy the sport.
I sometimes think that issues of dispute between the racing and bookmaking industries may appear to the outside world a little arcane, but the way in which my hon. Friend addressed the House this evening was a model of clarity—much more so perhaps than some of the technical and often heated exchanges that we see in the racing press, which are hard for the average person to understand. Now the greyhound industry has taken its campaign to the pages of The Times, in which it is advertising. That newspaper may or may not be read more widely by hon. Members than, say, The Sporting Life.
Racing and betting are major industries in this country. They are the major passions of some people and they are among the diversions, if not passions, of a good many


more. Incidentally, I welcome the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) who takes an interest in these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield ended by speaking of the need for an inquiry into the problems of greyhound racing and of betting on it. I shall begin by responding to that point, and then try to deal with as many of his detailed points as I can in the time available. Those that I do not answer now I shall try to deal with immediately in writing.
I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are carefully considering whether to hold an inquiry, and, if we hold one, whether it should include horse and greyhound racing. The need for an inquiry has been urged on us not least by the British Greyhound Racing Board, to which my hon. Friend referred. The House will know that last year, alas, the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Bookmakers Committee failed to agree the terms of the horserace betting levy scheme for the current financial year—the 28th scheme. My right hon.Friend the Home Secretary was therefore called upon to determine the scheme.
In their submissions about the levy dispute, the three Government-appointed members of the levy board recommended the establishment of an inquiry into the long-term funding of racing. My hon. Friend referred to these three people, who served the board with such distinction. When my right hon. Friend announced his determination of the scheme on 22 March this year, he said that he understood the arguments for this recommendation—meaning the need for an inquiry. He also explained that the possible privatisation of the Horserace Totalisator Board is a factor relevant to reaching a conclusion on the need for and the scope of an independent and objective assessment of the issues within the recommendation.
My right hon. Friend added that he would announce his conclusion on an inquiry when we had received and considered the advice of Lloyds merchant bank on the feasibility of privatising the Tote. I am not in a position to announce our conclusions on that issue, but we are making progress in considering the complex issues involved and at the end of April we received Lloyd's advice on the Tote. In addition, we have assured the chairman of the Betting and Greyhound Racing Board that whether or not the funding of greyhound racing should be included in such an inquiry is most certainly among the considerations that we are taking into account. I am happy to repeat that. In our view, that is certainly the right approach. It does not seem sensible to pursue an inquiry into greyhound racing alone.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose—

Mr. Patten: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is rising menacingly.

Mr. Holt: Has the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary taken into account the latest deliberations of the Horseracing Advisory Board, which has said that it is firmly against any form of inquiry?

Mr. Patten: We take careful account of the views of the horseracing world. I am aware of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. In recent months there have been some substantial shifts of opinion in the horseracing world about the desirability of an inquiry. Sometimes it is rather hard for the innocent Minister to keep up with the shifts in fashion about whether to have an inquiry.

Mr. Holt: I shall keep you posted.

Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's promise to keep me posted. No doubt the two Opposition Members who are present will do the same.
We have not reached a decision about an inquiry, but if one is held it will certainly encompass the relationship between greyhound racing and off-course bookmaking. That is a pledge if we go ahead with the inquiry. It would be extremely odd to consider bookmaking separate from its relationship to horse racing which accounts for the majority of off-course betting turnover.
Greyhound racing and horseracing are also alike in being subject to constraints and in enjoying privileges under legislation for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible. That is not to say that an inquiry is inevitable, because many of the issues that might be covered were explored in depth and with considerable authority by the Rothschild Royal Commission on gambling which reported 11 years ago, in 1978. It is not right to say that racing's interests have been neglected in the intervening years. For example, greyhound racing and horseracing were certainly helped by the abolition of the on-course betting duty in 1987. That help by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was widely welcomed.

Mr. Alan Meale: I accept much of what the Minister has said about how the industry has progressed. However, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, in the last 12 months a substantial amount of money—approximately £11 million—has gone astray. It has been taken from punters in off-course betting shops and continues to be deducted from punters who presume it is being paid in tax. To me, and probably to the majority of hon. Members, that is deception by off-course bookmakers of the punters. Will the Minister see if he can find a way to direct some of that money into the greyhound industry?

Mr. Patten: I shall do my best to respond later to the general tenor of the intervention by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not give way again because I wish to give as full a reply as possible before the debate finishes at 12.16.
I welcome the view of the hon. Member for Mansfield that he has seen some improvements. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield and for Langbaurgh, he will have noticed that the Government supported private Members' legislation in 1985, the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act, which abolished the limit on the number of days on which betting, and hence racing, was allowed on each greyhound track. That was a substantial advance.
In addition, means exist for exploring concerns about bookmaking, ill founded or not. It is interesting to re-read the Royal Commission's report of 1978. One passage caught my eye and I shall read it to the House and thereby run the risk of bringing to his feet again my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh. It says:
As Jane Austen might have said, it is a truth universally acknowledged that bookmakers make too much money…in fact, one might say that this opinion is held by everyone except bookmakers.
I do not hold those views myself.
Claims such as the manipulation of odds or betting information and alleged domination of others within or by


the bookmaking industry will, I suspect, continue just as long as bookmakers and punters do business. It shows something of the vitality of the racing industry, both horse and greyhound, that these feelings run so strongly. Such claims were considered exhaustively by the Director General of Fair Trading in 1986 and 1987. As a result, early last year, he decided not to refer the off-course bookmaking industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as a potential complex monopoly.
Continuing and suitable action under current arrangements—for example, by the Home Office, the Office of Fair Trading or Customs and Excise—might, therefore, remain the best means to address the concerns and claims of the racing industry. The arguments for a comprehensive review are also strong. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to announce his conclusion on an inquiry before the House rises for the summer recess, or, if not, in the spill-over session.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made a cluster of arguments for a levy on off-course bets for greyhound races, and asks two specific questions. He referred to Satellite Information Services. The greyhound industry has variously alleged that SIS is dominated by the big bookmakers, and argued either that it should be entitled to a holding in SIS, or that the placing of unissued shares in SIS should be deferred until there has been an inquiry into racing and betting. I understand the strength of feeling on this, but the Government are not answerable for SIS's conduct as a commercial company. I understand that, at present, the big bookmakers do not control the SIS board. Under the terms of the proposed sharing placing—I have gone into this with some care—the bookmakers' shareholding will reduce to less than 50 per cent. I also understand that the Racecourse Association, which also is independent of Government, is not sympathetic to the call for it to block the share placing unless or until there has been an inquiry. The current investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into the relationship between SIS and the

Racecourse Association is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, not my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I understand that the outcome of the investigation will be made public.
My hon. Friend then referred to section 19 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, and suggested that the spirit of this section might be being abused by the ownership of some greyhound tracks by off-course bookmaking companies. That section prohibits the proprietor of any greyhound track from having an interest in bookmaking on that track. That is because the proprietor can also operate his own totalisator. If he could also conduct the on-course bookmaking, he would have a monopoly of on-course betting. This does not apply to the ownership of tracks by off-course bookmakers. This was looked at in some depth by the Rothschild commission. In the absence of any evidence of abuse, it did not support the case for prohibiting off-course bookmakers from owning tracks, and nor has the Office of Fair Trading made any recommendations about it. If anyone has any evidence of malpractice, such as the fixing of races, by virtue of ownership, it is extremely important that it is brought to the attention of the Office of Fair Trading or the Home Office, and we shall deal with it urgently.
There are six principal reasons why the Government believe that the law relating to the levy on off course betting on greyhound races should not be changed. First, it is argued that greyhound racing is entitled to a levy because horseracing has one. The arrangements for the horseracing levy are in question at present, following the dispute about the 28th levy scheme and the resulting call from members of the levy board for an inquiry. Looking back at the origins of the levy, the extent to which it was the product of several special factors that applied back in 1960 is striking. The viability of English racing—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.